Topic: Where should Nintendo go next in regards to control scheme (Just controls NOT OTHER HARDWARE FEATURES)?

Well a few things:
1. The GamePad is a valuable addition and the cost of that sort of hardware will only get cheaper. Also they're not the only ones playing around with the general idea of it so I wouldn't call it "failed". Sony is doing it, NVidia is really pushing it, Valve is pushing it through software. The idea of the GamePad isn't going anywhere fast. Besides, the Smash video the other day showed huge value in the potential of stage creation and NFC
2. What's wrong with disagreeing with your premise? The Pro Controller is the best traditional controller I've ever used. The GamePad idea is good and would only be made better with a higher spec screen and some marginally better ID. The WiiMote is a different thing again but for what it is nothing else does it better. I'm sure they'll come up with something but frankly I'd be happy with what we have.
3. I think you have a bit of a double standard going. Apparently the GamePad is bad because it's "too expensive" but at the same time you're taking the Pro and saying how much better it'd be if it was also a swiss army knife of a controller. You also fail to remember that you buy one GamePad and, potentially, upto 7 other controllers. Again, they've done it well here, we have one swiss army knife and then a legion of lower featured controllers that are simple, cheap and work well.

I just want a normal damn controller next. No more gimmicks please.

Perhaps analog triggers and buttons that don't feel as squishy. Other than that, I'm fine as is.

I actually prefer things exactly how they are now. A controller with a screen on it is a must for me- even just the little things it can offer make it worthwhile. It's kind of like the 3DS in that respect- I just couldn't see myself going back to playing on one screen. In fact, every time I play the PS4 Or Xbox One, or even Vita for that matter, I get annoyed at the lack of a second screen. People say it adds little benefit but I say bologna. It's the little things you take for granted like freeing up real estate on TV, not pausing for a map or what have you. So I definitely hope all future consoles have a screen on the controller.

I also prefer having multiple controller options, so that in the event a game could benefit from say, motion controls, you have the ability to use them. It's not often or all the time, but every now and then I run into a game where I think man, I really want to play this with the Wiimote. Pikmin 3, Wii Sports Club Golf and Art of Balance more than justify the Wiimote compatibility. And of course there is the pro controller, which is always a great alternative if you want a traditional lightweight controller in tow.

So all in all I've got to say, I would prefer to not see any further changes, but rather refinements of the controllers already available. Perhaps a new Wiimote for 9th gen. Not as the main controller but just as an optional controller like it is now. Maybe they could put an analog stick on it so that when paired with the nunchuck, you have dual analogues. And maybe add two buttons below the analog on the nunchuck, and have Y, B, X, A below the analog on the Wiimote. Perhaps improve the motion technology as well while they're at it. And a headphone jack should be mandatory in all controllers, IMO.

With all due respect, statements like that make no sense to me. To me, that's like saying you just want a console with worse graphics, or no online, or no backwards compatibility. I just never understood why someone would be against more features, more capabilities. Almost every game there is is compatible with the pro controller, made specifically for people who don't want to use the gamepad, or perhaps don't want to use it for a particular game. So people like you can still play how you prefer, while the rest of us can play using the second screen how we prefer. Everybody wins.

But if they make the next console without a second screen feature, then those of us who enjoy the benefits offered by the second screen will have to suffer just so you don't have to use it for the 1% of games that are not compatible with the pro controller. Doesn't sound like a fair trade-off IMO. A fair trade-off, to me, is where those who prefer the benefits of a second screen get to do so, while those who for whatever reason don't like the extra features have the option of using a traditional controller. Kind of how things are now.

I agree the Gamepad has great situational potential, but I think it's cost really holds it back (it will get somewhat cheaper, but a touch screen and wireless chip can only drop in price so far.) I think the best thing for the device then is to just sell it as a separate peripheral for the next console and offering it in multiplayer centric bundles. Else, IMO, it just adds too much cost to be worth it.

If you think the Pro Controller is the best controller ever, that doesn't mean you disagree with the premise. I happen to think the GC controller is the greatest standard controller ever. But I also think there is plenty of room for improvement. In fact, Every controller can improve in some way, be it with small things like rumble in the triggers or big things like a touch screen. Controllers can always iterate upon their design to either be better for different games. Even better if they find they can do this with minimal sacrifice. Looking at the pro controller, adding clickable analog triggers would be a small improvement that would accomodate more racers as well as your occasional one off game like Mario Sunshine that benefits from the fully pressed click. You yourself pointed out how the Gamepad and Wii Remote could be improved. Sure, they are the best of their kind, but it's still worth improving.

As for the Gamepad, I'm not trying to present a double standard. While we should want controllers to continue to improve forever, there is the reality of cost. If the Gamepad costed $1000 per unit to include, that's clearly not a viable solution (for a main console controller). That's not to say Nintendo shouldn't try to find a cheaper solution, or change the method by which it's delivered (with console? Stand alone? Or bundled with a major game)

Now, when I was writing this I thought of a controller idea I think sounds awesome. Replace the right analog stick with something similar, but smaller, to the concave trackpads on Valve's steam controller. Now place that trackpad on bed that is capable of conical resistive movement (what an analog stick has). Why do this? Because like I said earlier, analog sticks aren't good for free pointer movement due to their smaller freedom of movement and resistive properties (resists movement outwards and tends to a center). What this idea is a best of both worlds solution. FPS's and games like Mario Galaxy or Okami could take advantage of the touch properties, while 3rd person adventure style games could take advantage over the swivel element. Now obviously I'm not a product designer, so I can't really tell you how they would optimize the size and height, but I bet they could figure it out. If you don't like the swivel idea, add a small c-nub like the new 3DS for camera control instead.

Well, I kind of meant refinements as included in changes.

I agree a new Wii Remote needs to happen. Better sensors is a must, particularly in the Nunchuk, but I'd like to see if they can take motion processing to the lengths Apple has, and made coding for it easier. Also head tracking or intensive haptic feedback could really buildthe immersive experience.

Where I disagree though is not making it the main controller. If they do that, then they might as well have not released the hardware at all. When a gameplay peripheral is sold separately, developers, including 1st Party ones, have far less incentive to support said peripheral. Selling a traditional controller separately is a far safer bet, as multiplat devs have already built their game around that control scheme, so supporting it isn't as much work. Additionally, they could add more buttons to the next gen Wii Remote, so that it could support most games built for the standard controller. Then they don't have to rely on people even owning the extra standard controller.

So, just for the record, I'm not in agreement with the guy you are responding to. But I do think you are missing something. Building a console isn't like building a computer. It's not limitless. It's more like packing a suitcase. They have to try as hard as they can to pack as much in within tight bounds. Namely <400 for the rest of the industry and <$300 for Nintendo (Nintendo has offered the cheapest product on the market for a while, so they are bound to a lower price). So you can't just include a controller that costs ~$80 more than average without having to sacrifice something else. Some people see it that they sacrificed power and online to do this.

Now here's my personal opinion. If you are going to drop something as critical to the industry (that's just a sad reality) as power and graphics, you better make damn sure you are dropping it for something that offers a similarly impressive and enticing experience.

This is where I think Nintendo slipped up with the Wii U. To a consumer eye, the Gamepad, while convenient, wasn't all that impressive at first glance. Graphics have that shiny aesthetic appeal. Motion control and touch gaming had a sense of novelty and an ideal image. The Gamepad confused people and looked like it had a basic similarity to both the DS and iPad.

I think the Xbox One Kinect is a perfect example of this. By the time the Kinectless bundle announced, only HMX (it seems) was left in terms of developers that created games that used the Kinect.

Moral of this thread:

''If I don't like it, it's a gimmick.''

But how should Nintendo improve the standard controller? An extra button maybe? Or a different trigger design? No controller is perfect.

Nintendo should make a controller where you can switch the position of the face buttons, d-pad, and analogue sticks so people can't say "BLANK controller is better because it's better to have the control sticks in BLANK position."

As for the standard controller, it should look like a Wii Classic Controller Pro, have a built in mic for voice chat, and two more triggers, positioned like the Dreamcast's triggers, and have it be analog.

Nintendo's next console is romoured to be the fusion, with that ethos how about the WII U gamepad evolving into a separate 7" tablet that slides into a controller a la gamevice for the iPad mini. That could also serve as a successor to the 3DS, while the other side to the fusion would be like the WII U but far more powerful. Might also have no disc drive and be digital only, trouble is this set up would be expensive.

Apparently I'm the only person here who'd really like to see them expand on the Wiimote. While the WiiMotion Plus was a step in the right direction, I still feel like there was a lot of room for improvement with the motion sensing technology itself.

Something with new brain reading tech. So you can use your thoughts to actually control stuff in the game, it would be perfect for a new Earthbound game!

Yes it is possible, although a bit of a way out:
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/10/15/novel-brain-monitori...
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140717-i-can-read-your-mind

Everything we have now, from standard traditional controls to touch screen GamePad controls Motion controls should obviously remain and therefore improve as time goes by. They should simply refine motion controls, add more precision and accuracy and, above all, a better range of movement in games. I love Skyward Sword, probably my fav Zelda game at the moment. It's fun playing that way, personally, and I would love to see the concept being expanded upon for next iterations of LoZ. I feel like SS offered us a taste of how motion controls in video games such as Zelda could truly work. Archery is pure joy, but I can't help but feel like sword combat is a bit on the "safer" side, where we have predetermined directions if we were to look at a circular plane. It's basically the generic 45° seperations with vertical, horizontal and the two diagonals (8 standard main directionals). I would like to see more ranges from in between being added, making for a more "realistic" or better yet, authentic, swordplay experience and not just the standard horizontal, vertical and 45° diagonal slashes. This could be somewhat frustrating for some, but it would truly be a tst of motor skills and hand-eye coordination, I feel.

Those rumors were debunked a long time ago.

Nowadays there is barely any point in revolutionazing how the game controls. When they try to revolutionaze it, it backfires. Remember that piece of crap sixaxxis? Yeah, it sucked so bad that even Sony was ashamed of it. Now it's history that they think nobody will remember. Same with kinect - great idea, problem is, barely any games and when there are they suck so bad it's not even funny (except dance central and just dance, those are awesome). There are maybe 10 games worth anything for it. Same with ROB, it was just tacked on, 2 games for it and that was it. Yes, it did it's purpose, but the point is, no matter what you do, people want something reliable and convinient to use. See the pattern?
Now you have PS4 with that annoying touchpad and my guess would be they will drop it eventually. When 1st party makes it inconvinient to use or just downright annoying, then you know they are in trouble. It blows in inFamous, especially when there are QTE with it and you have split second to react to it.
I think I'm not the only one who want just to sit on their big large fat butt merging with the couch, just playing with controller, not jump all around the place or waving arms or whatever.

I think you're too harsh, because, after all, they kinda learned their lesson, because, unlike Wii, you have the awesome alternative, Pro controller, which is completely awesome with great battery power, unlike Wii, where most of the time you are forced to use motion controls.

I want to rumble feature of the pro controller to be toned down a lot. Everytime he thing starts to shake I feel like it's going to destory something

Thing is that there's more that can be done with motion controls than with a traditional controller. A traditional controller has a finite number of buttons, only a certain amount of actions it can perform, whereas motion controls can do anything that the human body can do.