BEST THREAD EVER future of NL >:3
[16:43] James: I should learn these site rules more clearly
[16:44] LztheBlehBird: James doesn't know the rules? For shame!!!
LOL at the N64 bong. But let me add,if you're not going to read someone's thread please don't comment saying you don't want to read it. It makes you look like an ass, and i hope the same thing happends to you.
But anyway, this was a great read ,very interesting kudos to clickety click for pointing that other information out, i never knew that. I'm glad i do now kinda makes me think a tad bit different about Nintendo
my wii number: 8754-9981-5119-6538
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles number: 1290-4359-9435
PlayStationNetworkID: odd69
In all fairness, though, it has to be said that the Microvision "d-pad" is quite, quite different from the Nintendo one. The Microvision design was apparently based on 12 buttons over which a layer of flexible plastic with cutouts for various functions differing from game to game was placed (every game came with it's own adapted plastic cover; a fascinating concept, no doubt). So they were actually four indepentent buttons, assigned with directions, rather than one (and the plastic cover, which had to be depressed with some force, was prone to tearing). The concept of a "single" raised, cross-shaped button came from Nintendo. And, even though that might seem like a small difference, it's the one that makes all the... well, difference. After all, the Microvision lasted for all but two years, and no system hence has attempted to mimic it's button layout or design, innovative though it might be (except to some degree the N-Gage), whereas the Nintendo-style cross is still being used more than 20 years later. It's not just the idea, but what you do with it, and, above all, whether you can make it work. That's also the difference in terms of motion control: Sony never pursued it's idea further (until now), and Microsoft's original design was a flop (And before the Wii was properly announced, Nintendo stated in a press conference that the controller would not contain new technology, but technology that was already available, merely used in a new way, so Nintendo didn't claim to have "invented" motion control; Nintendo fanboys though are a a different story...).
In all fairness, though, it has to be said that the Microvision "d-pad" is quite, quite different from the Nintendo one. The Microvision design was apparently based on 12 buttons over which a layer of flexible plastic with cutouts for various functions differing from game to game was placed (every game came with it's own adapted plastic cover; a fascinating concept, no doubt). So they were actually four indepentent buttons, assigned with directions, rather than one (and the plastic cover, which had to be depressed with some force, was prone to tearing). The concept of a "single" raised, cross-shaped button came from Nintendo. And, even though that might seem like a small difference, it's the one that makes all the... well, difference. After all, the Microvision lasted for all but two years, and no system hence has attempted to mimic it's button layout or design, innovative though it might be (except to some degree the N-Gage), whereas the Nintendo-style cross is still being used more than 20 years later. It's not just the idea, but what you do with it, and, above all, whether you can make it work. That's also the difference in terms of motion control: Sony never pursued it's idea further (until now), and Microsoft's original design was a flop (And before the Wii was properly announced, Nintendo stated in a press conference that the controller would not contain new technology, but technology that was already available, merely used in a new way, so Nintendo didn't claim to have "invented" motion control; Nintendo fanboys though are a a different story...).
My views exactly. You just voiced them better than I could.
Those aren't rip-offs at all, there's a huge difference in most cases; you'll always be able to find something similar to any product, but it's the little details that are crucial. Someone already responded to the D-pad bit, but let's take the analog stick as another example.
Nintendo was already paying close attention to the Microvision, eager to rip off the next new design feature. It should come as no surprise then that when the guy who designed the Microvision went on to design the Vectrex with the first ever modern self-centering analog stick, Ninty was ready with their tracing paper. Well, apparently not quite so ready, because it took them 14 years to get their rip-off out the door, and it had inferior non-analog technology (not to mention poor placement) on their N64 controller.
Of course Nintendo didn't create the first analog stick, or even the first home version of one. But they did bring the analog thumbstick to the modern gamepad, no question about it. The one you cited is not even meant to be used by the thumb, and "poor placement" couldn't be further from the truth about the N64, as the feel of a thumbstick with an opposed rear trigger revolutionized first-person shooters and became the standard that is still practiced to this day. What's more, it was all about Nintendo's realization that analog was crucial to the new era of 3D gaming, so they built the analog thumb stick right into their controller. Sony laughably released the PS with more limited 3D capabilities and, to show that they had no clue where gaming was going, stuck with the SNES controller inherited by their original cooperative deal with Nintendo. Once they were shown up, they followed suit and tried to one-up Nintendo late in the game by adding... 2 of them. It's the same scenario with their wand, all over again; they never realize where gaming is going, instead playing it safe with the same setup from previous generations, then take whatever idea from Nintendo has suddenly changed the landscape of gaming, and try to do it a little bit more. Theirs goes to 11, etc. Not a brilliant company, but they sure are willing to do... more, however late it may come.
As for some of your others.... my God, I hope that was humor that inspired the majority of your post. The Palm Pilot's touch controls make the DS a copy??? No one ever claimed that touch interfaces didn't exist before the DS, but again it was all about Nintendo realizing first that portable gaming just makes sense with a touchscreen, and making a device that caters specifically to this new direction (backed with excellent games to show off the capabilities in a variety of ways). This was long before the iPod touch continued to show how portable gaming and a touchscreen are a perfect fit. Nintendo was clearly out in front.
I believe I've responded to motion controls in the other thread, but it seems a theme is emerging here. You don't seem to understand that having a patent floating out there, or having some accessory that technically can do X, is absolutely irrelevant compared to basing an entire console on an idea and really placing your bets on it strategically. No one was willing to make the leap to base an entire console around a new controller using IR and motion, but Nintendo showed remarkable insight regarding the market and used it to completely change the image of gaming worldwide. Now the other big 2 companies are trying to follow suit, and are laughably pointing to idle plans and patents they had sitting around but did nothing with while Nintendo ran away with the vast majority of the market share.
EDIT: Oh, and Microsoft's Sidewinder Freestyle Pro... haha, I forgot about that horrible thing, I owned one and tried desperately to enjoy it, because the tech seemed cool, but it was borderline useless. It was a whole lot like Sony's sixaxis, more than it resembles the Wii remote in any way. The problem with it and the sixaxis is that you're holding a gamepad in two hands yet expected to use its tilt in a controlled fashion, which is the most awkward thing imaginable. I remember trying to hold the gamepad level, and trying to use the buttons smoothly while tilting my arms back and leaning forward, etc. It was typical Microsoft proof-of-concept tech without careful interface design and ergonomics. Nintendo thankfully wasn't stupid enough to try to glue motion controls to a normal 2-handed gamepad; the realized that it can only work when your hands are freed to move independently.
"Sony laughably released the PS with more limited 3D capabilities and, to show that they had no clue where gaming was going, stuck with the SNES controller inherited by their original cooperative deal with Nintendo"
So laughable that Nintendo is now going back to that design with the Classic Controller? Apparently the N64 controller design was not so perfect or it'd still be around. It would have worked for playing VC games, too. And no one's copied it, either.
Excuse me while I disagree Adam. The N64 controller rocked! Just compare the launch title Turok and it's control set up, with every 360/PS3 fps out there, they are identical. I think all of today's 3D games and controllers owe a lot to Mario 64 and the controller that was designed around it. I am extremely biased though, ha. <3
"Sony laughably released the PS with more limited 3D capabilities and, to show that they had no clue where gaming was going, stuck with the SNES controller inherited by their original cooperative deal with Nintendo"
So laughable that Nintendo is now going back to that design with the Classic Controller? Apparently the N64 controller design was not so perfect or it'd still be around. It would have worked for playing VC games, too. And no one's copied it, either.
What I'm referring to as guffaw-able isn't the overall controller layout inherited from the SNES, but the fact that the PS1 launched with no analog control whatsoever. For the new era of 3D games, analog was fundamental, whether it be for platforming, FPS, or any other genre, and Sony completely missed that, sticking the old SNES controller on without a bit of analog. Nintendo did what they usually did, and actually bet everything on a specific vision of gaming going forward. That complete lack of foresight by Sony is what I'm talking about, to not even realize where gaming was headed and to have to later revise their controller to make sense with the new genres; the basic layout of buttons is fine.
"Sony laughably released the PS with more limited 3D capabilities and, to show that they had no clue where gaming was going, stuck with the SNES controller inherited by their original cooperative deal with Nintendo"
So laughable that Nintendo is now going back to that design with the Classic Controller? Apparently the N64 controller design was not so perfect or it'd still be around. It would have worked for playing VC games, too. And no one's copied it, either.
Surely you've already heard my whining already about the c-stick and how it should burn in hell like the nigh-useless piece of crap it is? I will be first in line when Nintendo gets their heads outta their butts and gives us a classic controller with some actual c-buttons or an official Nintendo-licensed adapter for N64 controllers to be used on the Wii! I don't know who the idiot was who thought an analog stick would be just fine to replace actual buttons, but they're the reason i haven't bought any other VC N64 games than OoT, and I don't have any plans to buy others (if and when they start releasing more), either, no matter how much fun I had playing Star Fox 64 and Majora's Mask when i was younger.
Also, @warioswoods: even though I eventually bought a Dualshock controller with the analog sticks, I always used the d-pad to play games on the PS1 and never the analog. I just didn't enjoy analog control, as the d-pad was always much more precise, and there were early games that did not do well with analog control at all (RPGs and sidescrollers). while i don't doubt that it was just because I didn't have the right games around to play with analog control, I also don't doubt in the slightest that I wasn't the only player back then who greatly preferred d-pad control to analog control even after Sony and Nintendo started using it in their controllers. you may think the analog stick is going forward with games, but it's just another gimmick to me; if at all possible I just don't use them. :3
BEST THREAD EVER future of NL >:3
[16:43] James: I should learn these site rules more clearly
[16:44] LztheBlehBird: James doesn't know the rules? For shame!!!
"Sony laughably released the PS with more limited 3D capabilities and, to show that they had no clue where gaming was going, stuck with the SNES controller inherited by their original cooperative deal with Nintendo"
So laughable that Nintendo is now going back to that design with the Classic Controller? Apparently the N64 controller design was not so perfect or it'd still be around. It would have worked for playing VC games, too. And no one's copied it, either.
If nothing else N64 games were designed for the N64 controller (which I loved) I would pay money for an N64 classic controller. I would probably buy two. For now, the GC controller is a necessity for N64 games, since it's still closer to the original layout than the classic. Once I start breaking into my SNES games, I'll probably have to finally get off my butt and purchase one.
I am way too lazy to think of something clever. My Backloggery
Wario, like Dragon, I prefer playing old Playstation games with the D-pad. I don't think it's a lack of foresight at all, but if it were, I'd chalk it up to the Playstation being Sony's first gaming platform. Real lack of foresight was an already established contender in the industry, Nintendo, sticking with cartridges instead of keeping their deal with Sony (and then compounding this lack of foresight by trying to ammend it with the hugely successful 64DD). Both sides faced problems because that deal failed, but Sony came out on top that generation and the next. Any perceived mistake of Sony's might induce a bitter chuckle out of the competition, but I don't think I heard any guffawing out of Nintendo back then. I don't see it as a mistake though, as I said, just saying if it were, it was a minor one. Plus, they "corrected" it, and it was not exactly a costly "mistake." So my point is, whether a mistake or not, it's really not laughable considering how minor and uncostly the mistake was and considering how new to the industry the company was; Nintendo, on the other hand, made big, costly mistakes and only made them worse in their attempted corrections.
We really need to move beyond the idea of "innovation." All ideas have a history behind them, histories that deserve to be acknowledged. Nintendo's D-pad has a predecessor, but it's called an innovation because Nintendo implemented it better. The Playstations analog sticks have a predecent in the N64 controller, but despite adding two of them and placing them much more comfortably (two design elements that Nintendo itsef has copied), we call this laughable. I fail to see the difference. Ideas don't come from nowhere, and everyone build's on each other's mistakes and successes in the industry. My only problem with Nintendo in this area is not that they take others' ideas, but that they take all the credit for it.
Dragon, I hear you there, but that's another issue. These games were designed for camera controlled by buttons, but the gaming standard is to use a stick for this control now, so Nintendo was apparently considering the Classic's utility in non-VC games, too, though I think its uses beyond VC have mostly been unnecessary. I, too, would prefer to play N64 games with their original controller... though in my case, it'd be more to the point just to say that I prefer not to play N64 games at all. But Nintendo apparently wants this to be considered a general purpose controller extension, and for general purpose, I do think they stuck with the best design. It's not like they support the N64 VC much, anyway.
what started as a half-baked joke has become controversial. touche, clickety-click. but i have some problems with your response-
the vectrex controller and the N64 controller are nothing alike aside from the standard layout that all controllers from the 80's on have used. you wouldn't say gibson's les paul ripped off the fender telecaster because both are fingered with the left hand and strummed with the right, would you? sometimes multiple companies arrive at the same conclusion by just doing what's intuitive. human hands seem most comfortable moving with the left and performing actions with the right.
saying that duck hunt is copying an analog game from the 30's is silly to me. are they the same in concept? yes, but with that much time between the two and such a difference in the way the game is played, it seems nintendo was paying homage to the old game if anything. you could go a step further and say that the analog game from the 30's was ripping off <i>actually</i> shooting ducks.
the DS/ palm pilot comparison is another thing i question. there's a bit of difference between implementing a feature years after it's become established in the industry by multiple products and looking over another company's shoulder to copy their innovations immediately as they create them.
the virtual boy comparison is apt, good thing the system sucked and didn't go anywhere. you may also be right about rumble, but there's no doubt that nintendo were the ones responsible for making it work on a mainstream system and establishing it as a standard feature for controllers. how many games supported the force FX compared to the nintendo's rumble pak? nintendo managed to get nearly every N64 game to utilize it after it's introduction.
when it comes to motion control, you can't give the other companies credit for just sketching the idea out on a napkin. nintendo were the first people to actually take the idea seriously and do the work to come up with a good motion control system, while the other companies had shoved it into a dark corner, never showing the balls or vision to follow through. the fact that they initially scoffed at nintendo for trying shows just how little they valued the idea.
my point isnot that nintendo is made up of saints who would never steal from anyone, it's just that they've been responsible for pushing most of the innovations in the way we play games since the very beginning while the current competition hasn't tried much of anything. i like sony and i've loved a lot of the games they've created, but there's a clear difference between the way they and nintendo think about video games. nintendo is a comparatively small company, with video games as their sole focus. sony is a huge conglomerate that was making every consumer electronic imaginable and it was just logical that they should also create video games. games are just another branch to the company, and you get the sense that most people in charge of deciding which direction to go for each new system don't play video games themselves. it's the same with microsoft; both companies just got involved because it was clearly a lucrative business.
of course nintendo also wants to make money, but they seem to actually take a personal stake in making fun games. they have intensely creative people like shigeru miyatomo in charge of high level decisions, people willing to take risks if it means an interesting outcome. satoru iwata, the president himself, was a video game nerd who had a passion for programming games in his free time; he even takes a direct role in the creation of games still today. they don't always make great games, but they seem to be the only company interested in making something fun for the sake of fun.
HA good discussion people. I think everyone has some valid points but there's one thing for sure.......I WANT THE BONG CONTROLLER NOW.Awsome idea now if Sony would have copied that for the PS3 I might have gotten one
The digital pad was indeed better than the analog on the PS1, but that's because the sticks on the Dual Analog / Dual Shock were always way too loose, making it feel imprecise. I love the way Nintendo put a tighter tension on the stick, and also cut the angles around the outside so that you could lock it into a cardinal direction securely when that was your intention. Much preferable to either the d-pad or sticks on the PS controller.
There's really a fundamental philosophical divide regarding design and tech that is at stake here, and I think I've made it clear which side I'm on. You can make a device that is essentially just a high-powered media box that will run anything and that has a generic interface; Sony is quite good at that, and I don't begrudge them that skill. I, however, despise tech of that sort. For me, the completed design and unified vision behind a device is far more important than its tech specs, and I believe that hardware and software should be wedded as much as possible. That's how Nintendo operates (it's also how Apple operates), and it means that they make real, irreversible, bold decisions with each successive console, decisions that set out in one direction or another regarding the kinds of games that will be made. Time and again, those choices have changed the face of gaming, while the other 2 gaming companies are more than satisfied to just keep pumping out the next generic box in the same mold, albeit more powerful.
I completely disagree with the assertion that the N64 was any kind of failure; it sold less, certainly, but I'm highly supportive of the moves Nintendo made at that point. Instead of continuing down the road to a more powerful media-centric console with a CD and all the general flexibility of content that allows, they threw all their weight (hardware and software development) behind a smooth 3D gaming experience with zero loading times. Don't forget just how daring a move that was; Nintendo essentially decided to follow the SNES with a console that was not capable of playing the same kinds of games as its predecessors. The N64 had nearly nonexistent 2D capabilities, so Nintendo could no longer rely on any of the work it had established for its classics 2D genres, forcing itself to start each series again in a completely new format. And it worked, if you ask me, producing some of my favorite games of all time, and ushering in much of the outlines of 3D gameplay that you still see today. The lack of an analog stick on the PS1 at launch is not an isolated mistake so much as it is an example of Sony's approach, which is to merely upgrade, tack more features on as needed, and never set out in any particular direction.
Now, during that time, Sony became the default home for everything else that didn't fit the vision of the N64, and that's fine, the market needed a machine like that as well, but that kind of status quo + incremental hardware upgrades just doesn't interest me. I want gaming to be moved forward by real hardware decisions that then set the bounds for the next generation of games, and I greatly prefer a company whose software and hardware work is one project, matching every detail of the design of the system to the kind of games they will be making, and forcing their standard franchises to be presented in the new format.
I don't personally care how many motion controllers or additional input methods Sony and MS can create as add-ons to their machines; that's never the same as launching with a configuration that forces a certain direction, like the Wiimote or the N64's 3D-only cartridge-only setup. It's just an optional aside that won't stand much of a chance of pushing gaming in one direction or another. Again, it's like the iPod versus all the other MP3 players that had flooded the market. With the iPod and iTunes, you had a streamlined unity of hardware and software, and it was a bold and coherent enough vision to take over the market by storm, causing all its competitors to follow in its tracks. Many other MP3 players had better features on paper, but who cares? Again, that's only one small piece of the entire product you're selling.
Anyhow -- to end this long bit, I have no problem with those that appreciate Sony, so long as there is an understanding that the kind of gaming and the kind of innovation pursued by Sony and Nintendo couldn't be further apart, and I for one would leave gaming (once again) if Nintendo weren't out there doing what it does. The other 2 companies fulfill the same, interchangeable function, with neither being particularly significant.
PS. Adam -- I see your 3 paragraphs and raise you to 6.
Forums
Topic: Nintendo's frustrating history of being endlessly ripped off: a retrospective
Posts 21 to 40 of 90
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.