Ronnie Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 I think IGN have really improved their Nintendo coverage these past few years. I actually think they're excellent nowadays, I listen to Game Scoop and NVC pretty much every week without fail. Game Scoop is best when it's Daemon, Justin, Brian and Colin IMO. People say IGN is anti-Nintendo but I don't think that's true at all, far from it in fact. Jose annoys me a little, but otherwise I think the cast is great. Brian is very funny and clearly loves Nintendo, Peer talks a fair bit of sense and Colin is probably the one I respect the most because I agree with a lot of his views and he knows his stuff. I wouldn't call him negative I actually think his tougher stance is needed, he makes some great points.
Sheikah Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 I have always maintained that the Gamepad is more evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. Sure, it's not massively innovative and there's no "killer software" to "justify" it, but there doesn't need to be. It streamlines how games are played in my view. Just having map and inventory on the screen without pausing taking you out of the game and taking a few seconds to load (urgh, GTA...sort it out), it's right there in front of you. It's things like that which make me love the GamePad, not any "revolutionary" crap. As Peer said, people don't ask for Sony to justify things in their controller, so why Nintendo? It's a part of their system, get over it. Any innovative use for the GamePad will be met with hostility anyway, just look at the reactions to the description of how it's used in StarFox. The thing about evolution is that it gives you an advantage over your competitors, such that you continue to pass on whatever it is gave you that advantage and (typically) the competition dies out and not you. With the Wii U, the gamepad is actually a disadvantage as nobody wants it, and I'd be very surprised if it got passed on to the next generation. To put it in genetic terms, it's a mutation alright. But the kind that causes you to die out rather than give you a cool new ability.
Wii Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 I have always maintained that the Gamepad is more evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. Sure, it's not massively innovative and there's no "killer software" to "justify" it, but there doesn't need to be. It streamlines how games are played in my view. Just having map and inventory on the screen without pausing taking you out of the game and taking a few seconds to load (urgh, GTA...sort it out), it's right there in front of you. It's things like that which make me love the GamePad, not any "revolutionary" crap.
liger05 Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) I'm with RedShell here. Jose and Peer are always on top form and are clearly fans and know what they're on about. Brian has his moments, but that Colin guy was just so abrasive and so negative. I have always maintained that the Gamepad is more evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. Sure, it's not massively innovative and there's no "killer software" to "justify" it, but there doesn't need to be. It streamlines how games are played in my view. Just having map and inventory on the screen without pausing taking you out of the game and taking a few seconds to load (urgh, GTA...sort it out), it's right there in front of you. It's things like that which make me love the GamePad, not any "revolutionary" crap. As Peer said, people don't ask for Sony to justify things in their controller, so why Nintendo? It's a part of their system, get over it. Any innovative use for the GamePad will be met with hostility anyway, just look at the reactions to the description of how it's used in StarFox. How is the Gamepad and the DS4 the same? Nintendo when the first announced the Wii U did so by showing the gamepad. They marketing and advertising before and after launch was all Gamepad centric. Things may have changed now but initially Nintendo was all about pushing the gamepad as a 'new controller' and selling it as something you couldnt find on other consoles. When a controller takes up so much cost of the actual console production then yes I think Nintendo should justify why they went with such a controller and why people should pay for such a thing? As for the streamline argument I think taking your eyes away from the TV screen becomes a hindrance and negates that. Edited July 2, 2014 by liger05
Sheikah Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 I want to know why pausing the game to see the map is any different than looking away from the gameplay to see the map. In both cases you are not continuing to play the game while seeing the map. And I would rather my game be paused, actually, if I'm not actually playing. As well as being able to stay looking at the same area.
Wii Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Looking at the map in Mario Kart 8 on the gamepad is far from ideal.
Retro_Link Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 I'm with RedShell here. Jose and Peer are always on top form and are clearly fans and know what they're on about. Brian has his moments, but that Colin guy was just so abrasive and so negative. I have always maintained that the Gamepad is more evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. Sure, it's not massively innovative and there's no "killer software" to "justify" it, but there doesn't need to be. It streamlines how games are played in my view. Just having map and inventory on the screen without pausing taking you out of the game and taking a few seconds to load (urgh, GTA...sort it out), it's right there in front of you. It's things like that which make me love the GamePad, not any "revolutionary" crap. As Peer said, people don't ask for Sony to justify things in their controller, so why Nintendo? It's a part of their system, get over it. Any innovative use for the GamePad will be met with hostility anyway, just look at the reactions to the description of how it's used in StarFox. God in the end I could only skim read this post, unbearable.
Rummy Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Decided to give this a listen in the car on the way to work given the discussions, it actually turned out to be the perfect length for today's trip too! I missed a point or two due to some bad driving on the road, but I mostly found myself agreeing with a lot of what they were saying. Admittedly it isn't exactly new or revolutionary however, I'd say a lot of it's been discussed by us here before but I think the main point IS quite apt - why wasn't there more that REALLY utilised the gamepad shown at E3?
Serebii Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 God in the end I could only skim read this post, unbearable. Thanks. Glad you like it
Rummy Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 This was the Wii U's 4th E3... All the more worrying, really. I've got great ideas for the gamepad and it didn't take me 2 years. I think Nintendo are being Nintendo and don't want to risk investing heavily in a gamepad idea that might flop. My question would be though - why does it have to be a 'heavy' investment? Something small, quirky, eShop release with a affordable price to make back the costs on a small number of sales - why can't it be done?
Serebii Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 All the more worrying, really. My question would be though - why does it have to be a 'heavy' investment? Something small, quirky, eShop release with a affordable price to make back the costs on a small number of sales - why can't it be done? It probably can, then you get people criticising Nintendo for these small projects as per Project Giant Robot, Starfox etc, saying they're a waste of time, and them being eShop would result in complaints of them not being system sellers and thus aren't killer apps.
Rummy Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 I want to know why pausing the game to see the map is any different than looking away from the gameplay to see the map. In both cases you are not continuing to play the game while seeing the map. And I would rather my game be paused, actually, if I'm not actually playing. As well as being able to stay looking at the same area. The obvious answer would be latency and lack of interuption - in some games/moments you might continue to move around and have a quick glance at the map to see where you are/are going etc. Sometimes though, of course, you might prefer to be able to pause the action to do so and possibly explore the map in more detail. I don't see it as a crazy amazing feature however, and there's definitely flaws... Looking at the map in Mario Kart 8 on the gamepad is far from ideal. Such as this. I found it super wank trying to look at the map on my gamepad whilst playing/racing on the main screen. It's one thing with the DS as the screens are smaller and closer together so it's a much smaller viewing angle of sorts, I find it feels so much longer looking at the gamepad from the TV and back though. They did mention the Castlevania games on DS, I found it quite nice there to sort of half check the map whilst runnning between rooms I already knew, but I think on a TV setup where I might run into an unexpected enemy it may be the difference that gets me an extra hit.
Goron_3 Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 It probably can, then you get people criticising Nintendo for these small projects as per Project Giant Robot, Starfox etc, saying they're a waste of time, and them being eShop would result in complaints of them not being system sellers and thus aren't killer apps. The complaints directed at Project Giant Robot etc are that it's been 4 years since Nintendo showed off the Wii U and this unique, novel idea that is a gamepad is still only getting tech demos. They made a decision in January to stick with it but clearly don't have a clue what to do with. People also tend to dislike shoehorning control gimmicks into a game (i.e. Starfox). I'm with RedShell here. Jose and Peer are always on top form and are clearly fans and know what they're on about. Brian has his moments, but that Colin guy was just so abrasive and so negative. I have always maintained that the Gamepad is more evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. Sure, it's not massively innovative and there's no "killer software" to "justify" it, but there doesn't need to be. It streamlines how games are played in my view. Just having map and inventory on the screen without pausing taking you out of the game and taking a few seconds to load (urgh, GTA...sort it out), it's right there in front of you. It's things like that which make me love the GamePad, not any "revolutionary" crap. As Peer said, people don't ask for Sony to justify things in their controller, so why Nintendo? It's a part of their system, get over it. Any innovative use for the GamePad will be met with hostility anyway, just look at the reactions to the description of how it's used in StarFox. 'People don't ask for Sony to justify things in their controller'. What the hell are you talking about? The controller justifies itself; it's cheap, has 2 analogue sticks and doesn't force up the price of the console. The Wii U gamepad is the reason the console is so expensive and why they can't cut the cost. It's also the reason why the console is underpowered relative to it's price, as the price is reflective of the hardware AND the expensive controller, not just the price. The touchpad on the PS4 costs like what, $1? Maybe less than that. The PS4's controller doesn't sacrifice the systems power as it's dirt cheap. Honestly I don't know what you're referring to here. Also Serebii, we've had this discussion SO many times it's ridiculous. You get called out on it and whenever you're corrected or someone makes a great point, you completely ignore it and go back to posting the same old stuff a few days later. Seriously, this is the last time I swear
Sheikah Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 The obvious answer would be latency and lack of interuption - in some games/moments you might continue to move around and have a quick glance at the map to see where you are/are going etc. Sometimes though, of course, you might prefer to be able to pause the action to do so and possibly explore the map in more detail. I don't see it as a crazy amazing feature however, and there's definitely flaws... I find looking down and focusing on another screen to actually takes more time than the delay between, say, pressing square and a map appearing. Real-time map updating is about the only use, but then not all games do pause when you launch the map.
Goron_3 Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 I find looking down and focusing on another screen to actually takes more time than the delay between, say, pressing square and a map appearing. Real-time map updating is about the only use, but then not all games do pause when you launch the map. I use the screen in Wind Waker but I still prefer to pause the game before I look down. Skyward Sword nailed it imo; allowing players to switch items on the go on TV without pausing the game. Wind Waker HD is a step back imo. Edit. Really recommend listening to the latest episode of Gamescoop btw! http://uk.ign.com/videos/2014/06/27/game-scoop-episode-308-game-of-the-year-watch They discuss their GOTY so far and all agree that they prefer games like Shovel Knight and Child of Light to Titanfall.
Sheikah Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Yeah, Wind Waker is about the only game I can think of that really worked because sailing was mostly automatic, leaving you to use the gamepad while it sailed. That's a really specific game situation though and I can't see it being a much better solution for any other game really.
Kav Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Yeah, Wind Waker is about the only game I can think of that really worked because sailing was mostly automatic, leaving you to use the gamepad while it sailed. That's a really specific game situation though and I can't see it being a much better solution for any other game really. More games need to be like ZombiU that make deliberate use of the Gamepad disrupting gameplay for the atmosphere/tension, as well as things like in Wind Waker for the map/item management. I much preferred the Batman: Arkham games when the Gamepad was utilised as a map/item management... I'm gutted the WiiU isn't getting Arkham Knight, well done Nintendo. Still though, my favourite feature of it is the off-TV play... but that's not a selling point.
Serebii Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) The complaints directed at Project Giant Robot etc are that it's been 4 years since Nintendo showed off the Wii U and this unique, novel idea that is a gamepad is still only getting tech demos. They made a decision in January to stick with it but clearly don't have a clue what to do with. People also tend to dislike shoehorning control gimmicks into a game (i.e. Starfox). 'People don't ask for Sony to justify things in their controller'. What the hell are you talking about? The controller justifies itself; it's cheap, has 2 analogue sticks and doesn't force up the price of the console. The Wii U gamepad is the reason the console is so expensive and why they can't cut the cost. It's also the reason why the console is underpowered relative to it's price, as the price is reflective of the hardware AND the expensive controller, not just the price. The touchpad on the PS4 costs like what, $1? Maybe less than that. The PS4's controller doesn't sacrifice the systems power as it's dirt cheap. Honestly I don't know what you're referring to here. Also Serebii, we've had this discussion SO many times it's ridiculous. You get called out on it and whenever you're corrected or someone makes a great point, you completely ignore it and go back to posting the same old stuff a few days later. Seriously, this is the last time I swear I remember when people were saying using the touch screen in games was a gimmick, now look where the industry is. But yeah, I agree that showing "tech demos" is a bad thing this far in, but with Nintendo, and you know this, tech demos always turn into full game concepts. Hell, they have given Project Giant Robot an early 2015 release, afterall. So it's a bit further along than "tech demo". And yes, the GamePad is a bit more, but that doesn't mean Nintendo has to continually "justify" the bloody thing. NintendoLand did the job. Off-TV play did the job. Everything else gets thrown in as "lolgimmick" and "I want standard control", like Starfox as you said. Also, I am fairly certain that the Wii U wouldn't have had more power if Nintendo released it without the GamePad from the beginning. The GamePad just adds to the overall package. Also http://www.shopto.net/video-games/ps4/PS4DU00-sony-dualshock-4-controller-black Not cheap :p £54.99 RRP is ridiculous. Edited July 2, 2014 by Serebii
Goron_3 Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 I remember when people were saying using the touch screen in games was a gimmick, now look where the industry is. But yeah, I agree that showing "tech demos" is a bad thing this far in, but with Nintendo, and you know this, tech demos always turn into full game concepts. Hell, they have given Project Giant Robot an early 2015 release, afterall. So it's a bit further along than "tech demo". And yes, the GamePad is a bit more, but that doesn't mean Nintendo has to continually "justify" the bloody thing. NintendoLand did the job. Off-TV play did the job. Everything else gets thrown in as "lolgimmick" and "I want standard control", like Starfox as you said. Also, I am fairly certain that the Wii U wouldn't have had more power if Nintendo released it without the GamePad from the beginning. The GamePad just adds to the overall package. Also http://www.shopto.net/video-games/ps4/PS4DU00-sony-dualshock-4-controller-black Not cheap :p 1. It was still a tech demo. We still don't know where they are going with this. 2. The gamepad isn't a 'bit more', it's costing them a bomb to produce and they sunk a lot into its R&D. You mention Nintendo Land but that no longer comes with the Wii U and was not the Wii Sports they were looking for. Most games used the Wii remote too, remember. Off-TV play clearly hasn't done the job as very few people find that a useful feature, especially in the west when most people already own a TV. It's also a completely useless feature unless the thing has games on it that appeal to people. No one is going to buy the Wii U and use the gamepad for Off-TV games if they aren't interesting in the games. 3. It might not have had more power but it would have been cheaper, definitely. 4. That's the RRP price, not the cost price.
Sheikah Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Not cheap :p £54.99 RRP is ridiculous. That's price and not cost...we know it's not costing Sony anywhere near that to produce, just like the memory cards for the PS Vita.
Serebii Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 1. It was still a tech demo. We still don't know where they are going with this.2. The gamepad isn't a 'bit more', it's costing them a bomb to produce and they sunk a lot into its R&D. You mention Nintendo Land but that no longer comes with the Wii U and was not the Wii Sports they were looking for. Most games used the Wii remote too, remember. Off-TV play clearly hasn't done the job as very few people find that a useful feature, especially in the west when most people already own a TV. It's also a completely useless feature unless the thing has games on it that appeal to people. No one is going to buy the Wii U and use the gamepad for Off-TV games if they aren't interesting in the games. 3. It might not have had more power but it would have been cheaper, definitely. 4. That's the RRP price, not the cost price. 1. Perhaps, but I don't see it being too different. 2. Well I argue otherwise, but this is a circular argument that we have had numerous times. 3. No arguments here 4. Perhaps, but they wouldn't have it be so high if it was so low. It's disgusting that they're charging that much. Same with Nintendo with the Wii Remotes
Sheikah Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 4. Perhaps, but they wouldn't have it be so high if it was so low. It's disgusting that they're charging that much. Same with Nintendo with the Wii Remotes Yes, they would. See the PS Vita memory cards. And it's not really disgusting. The elusive Wii U pro controller costs around £40 and that has nowhere near the build quality.
Serebii Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Yes, they would. See the PS Vita memory cards. And it's not really disgusting. The elusive Wii U pro controller costs around £40 and that has nowhere near the build quality. Dualshock 4s have got the control stick coating ripping off etc. There are no reports of things like that with the Pro Controller. So, do tell, how is the build quality better?
Kav Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 The Pro Controller feels great, I don't get the whole "low build quality" statement.
Sheikah Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) Dualshock 4s have got the control stick coating ripping off etc. There are no reports of things like that with the Pro Controller. So, do tell, how is the build quality better? Spoken like someone who has no clue. Try using them both, for a proper amount of time (before you start). The PS4 controller, like the X1 controller, feels well constructed and actually feels like a premium controller. The Pro controller's shiny plastic feels cheap, the buttons are hard and uncomfortable to press, the sticks are laid out oddly and the surface of the controller is almost flat with very little ergonomic design. Don't get me started on the triggers. It genuinely feels like an afterthought, which it pretty much is, as the gamepad was essentially made to be the main controller. Saying that, it's still preferable to use for me over the gamepad, but that's really not a compliment. The fact fans were very happy with the Gamecube controller attachment basically sums up how much people thought of that controller relative to this one. If Sony released an update to use your PS3 controller on the PS4, precisely zero fucks would be given. The PS4 controller is almost universally seen as an improvement, whereas I think you'd find a lot of people who preferred the Gamecube controller to the Wii U pro. Edited July 2, 2014 by Sheikah
Recommended Posts