Nintendo Revolution controller: iPod-inspired | iLounge Backstage


Nintendo Revolution controller: iPod-inspired

image Based on early reports (and since the words appear to be used in every article), it will be interesting to see if any account of the new Nintendo Revolution controller does not use the phrase “iPod-inspired” or something of the sort. I would have picked the phrases “DVD player-inspired” and “Dreamcast-inspired” instead.

If you’re saying, “what the…?” right now, the answer is that Nintendo believes that games need to be simpler, and therefore controllers need to be simple and accessible. (Didn’t work so well for GameCube, last I checked.) So they made this. Attachments plug into the bottom, and it senses the direction you move it in, like a wand. And it rumbles. Okay.

I’d write more on this, but I can’t claim to be interested enough to do so.


« Game Boy Micro - Final Packaging

Lyric Display, or How My iPod nano Decoded Twista »

Related Stories



This is huge. This is gaming of the future. EA, Sonic, etc, all the big game developers are already into it. Engadget’s got the round up of reviews and pics:

Posted by Kevin on September 16, 2005 at 1:16 AM (CDT)


Also, check out the teaser video:

Posted by Kevin on September 16, 2005 at 1:24 AM (CDT)


You can now watch the video of the keynote speech from Satoru Iwata, president of Nintendo.

In the first few seconds, you can see that Mr. Iwata uses a Powerbook :) He also quoted Steve Jobs at the last E3.

As for the “Remote Controller”, it reminds me that I’m glad that Nintendo exists. I hope that all the whiners that say that they won’t buy a Revolution because of this actually don’t buy it. This way Nintendo and developers would be able to focus on producing new gameplay genres instead of doing bad ports. It won’t matter if the market-share is little, as the market demands will be much more toward small innovative games that don’t require that much investments.

New technology allow much more precise 3d tracking, this has nothing to do with the Power Glove. You can only control 2 joysticks or d-pads with 2 thumbs on a “normal” controller, while the motion and rotation tracking on the Revolution controller provides a third parallel way to control the action (in 3d nonetheless). I don’t see how it could only be a gimmick, as developers will easily integrate motion tracking into their games, at least as a mouse/analog joystick equivalent.

Jeremy, as shown in other articles, you have some issues with Nintendo, like they didn’t became what you wanted them to become. I know that this is Backstage, but I would have liked some more facts and an “iPod perspective” instead of your unilateral dissing. Some people say that the iPod nano also looks like a remote control, do you know why they are all similar in shape? Because remote controls also use a shape that simply logically fits well into the average hand.

You should accept that the people that created the Nintendo games you loved in the days have chosen this path. Or you can chose to whine and whine and take it negatively.

Personally, I think that a 3d tracking device being standard on a game console is pretty neat.

Posted by VL-Tone on September 16, 2005 at 8:23 AM (CDT)


VL-Tone…i understand where you’re coming from…but this ‘controller’ is nothing new. all nintendo have actualy done is split a normal controller in two.
It’s awkward.
yes, i agree, it’s a new take on gaming, and kudos to NIntendo for going this route and trying sucha thing, but all i see at the moment in Nintendo is a fish out of water (song and microsoft being the one’s that put it there, as Nintendo can in no way match them). Nintendo can’t amtch them, so they’re doing something different.
And doing it badly.
That’s my 2 cents on this. A huge hype, and a huge let down. Thanks Nintendo. Enjoy your limitd time in the hardware market you have left.
Dan x

Posted by Daniel Nicholls on September 16, 2005 at 8:44 AM (CDT)


VL: The most common refrain from “Nintendo fans,” “Sony fans,” “Microsoft fans” when someone says something they don’t like is “you’re biased” (aka “you have issues with this company”). Fact is, as you’ve probably seen if you’ve read Backstage at all, I point out things about each one of these companies, and don’t swear allegiance to any one of them. I’ve knocked Sony for shady marketing, poor manufacturing quality and lying to its customers, Microsoft for any number of issues related and unrelated to games, and Nintendo for taking weird paths instead of just focusing on releasing good software. And I’ve also pointed out positive things for each company, more for Sony and Nintendo than Microsoft, but there are (non-bias) reasons for that. In the last week, Backstage has positively previewed Game Boy Micro, and in the last month, highlighted good DS games. So this isn’t some blind or unreasonably motivated gripe.

There are a few other facts worth pointing out. Nintendo has harped on “expanding the market through simplicity” for three different consoles now, including Revolution. And even if I thought it was misguided, I’ve been buying them. But every non-gamer I talk with is avoiding Nintendo products these days because there is little or no software they want. Instead, non-gamers keep flocking to Sony’s consoles - because of the software. And none of them are complaining about Sony’s Dual Shocks. People seem to like them. If hardware sales to average people depended on controllers, Sony wouldn’t have sold 100+ million PS1s and 80+ million PS2s. (The N64 did around 30m, and GameCube around 20, despite “simplicity” etc.)

When you look at the numbers, Nintendo’s claims of expanding the market are laid bare as self-serving and inaccurate. The original NES sold upwards of 60 million units, and the SNES around 50. As little as I like Sony these days, it’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that people have been walking away from Nintendo consoles in favor of competitors such as Sega and particularly Sony for 15 years. Is a controller going to reverse this? Hasn’t worked the last three or four times it was tried.

I have no issue with the gyroscopic and tracking technology inside. It would have fit perfectly into an evolved WaveBird, which is the controller I purchased for use with my GameCube. (And I purchased my first GameCube, incidentally, in Tokyo on the day of Japanese launch.) But a two-piece controller - one, again, with limited face buttons - is fraught with problems.

I find the “good riddance, ports” argument to be specious. The failures of recent Nintendo consoles are largely (though not entirely) traceable to their lack of quality third-party support at a time when third-party games are more important than ever in determining the success of a console. Under a “we don’t want ports” scenario, Nintendo gives them a choice: create a new game for us or go away, instead of their past (N64/GameCube/DS) second option, adapt your port to not only our hardware, but our controller. It was hard enough to get people to port to these systems - most wouldn’t, and Nintendo sometimes had to pay outside development teams (think Metal Gear Solid) to do the work, a problem compounded by terrible sales. When the rare original title did come out (such as the amazing Resident Evil 4, from Capcom, the only company avowedly willing to produce “exclusives” thanks to $$$ exchanging hands), the company immediately started work on a PS2 version. No shock that RE5 and basically every other third-party franchise people care about are now coming for PS3 and/or X360.

Face facts - no third-party has developed an original hit title solely for a Nintendo console in years. It just does not make economic sense to do so. With the controller and the hardware design (if it is, in fact, not close in power to either of the new machines), Nintendo appears to be guaranteeing that will be the case again. If you want an “iPod perspective” on this controller development, it’s this: you can color a console and controller white and use acrylic on their buttons, but that doesn’t make them iPod-like. iPods have problems playing good games because of their controls, and should not be taken as an example of how to do everything.

Posted by Jeremy Horwitz on September 16, 2005 at 11:32 AM (CDT)


Daniel Nicholls:

If you would actually take time to learn about the controller, you would know that it is MUCH more than simply splitting the controller in two.  The gyroscopic sensors will allow completely new types of games, and will make other game experiences interactive.  Imagine a lightsaber battle in which you actually swing the controller to control the lightsaber.  Nintendo is re-defining what control should be…

Posted by Cameron Talley on September 16, 2005 at 1:24 PM (CDT)


I have to say I like this controller.  It’s a cool concept.  Could the tracking stuff make it so the controller itself could be used as a joystick?  That would be cool.  I say we need to wait and see what other attachments Nintendo thinks up to plug in the bottom.

Posted by papayaninja on September 16, 2005 at 5:11 PM (CDT)


no one wants to play a game like that.
people want to be as into the game as possible, meaning using both hands. no one can get into a game be using a “wand”! do they watch people play games?!

Posted by joshua on September 16, 2005 at 6:09 PM (CDT)


papayaninja: yes, and that’s what people don’t seem to understand. The motion sensing is equivalent to an analog joystick, but with higher precision. It also can sense movement in the third dimension, and can sense rotation.The thing is that you have to use one of your thumbs to control this “virtual 3d joystick”. You don’t have to make exagerated hand movements to use it, you can rest your arm on your lap and still control it if you ever feel “tired”.

If you count the select and start buttons and the D-Pads, there are 8 buttons on the “remote” itself, and 2 Z triggers on the analog module. 10 buttons on a controller is not that bad, the n64 had 12.

Jeremy, when I said you had “issues” with Nintendo I meant that you seem to be a classical case of “I used to love Nintendo when I was younger but now they need to grow up”. Anyway I don’t know you, but it’s the impression I got.

There are enough “crazy” people like me that will support Nintendo for years to come. And people like me don’t need multi-million dollar rehashes of the same old games (shooters and driving games) with hyper-realistic graphics. This mean a smaller but healthy software market can exist for the Revolution. Also remember that the Revolution will feature an integrated online store, so that developers would be able to churn out cheap but innovative games without much cost overhead on distribution. There quite a few games like that already on the DS, and they are selling well enough to be profitable since they don’t cost much to develop compared to let’s say, PSP games. When I say innovative games, I’m also talking about puzzles and the like, where gameplay logic innovation is what makes a good game. The mostly 2d gameboy advance is still selling well, because there are many people looking for these kind of basic gameplay logics, not just for nostalgia. You underestimate the potential market for the Revolution. Your entourage is different than mine, because I know many people that played videogames for hours in the NES-SNES-N64 days and that stopped playing since then, that are now getting seriously interested in the Rev. My parents (55+) play puzzles games on their own SNES (Yoshi Cookie, Kirby’s avalanche and Tetris Attack). My mother used to play other games like Klax on her NES but it doesn’t work anymore. As far as electronic entertainment goes, the other thing they do is use a TV or DVD remote control. My dad is already interested in the Rev and I’m sure my mother would like to be able to play Dr Mario again, amongst other thing, and would probably be interested in a motion-sensor controlled Panel-De-Pon (Tetris Attack) game. And no I’m not Japanese, nor my parents :)

Sure, Nintendo has always been pushing for “simplicity and redefining gameplay”. But until the DS, it was only a little part of their marketing. Unlike what you, I don’t see the DS failing in expanding game markets and redefining gameplay. Note that many games were released since you reviewed “Electro Plankton”.

There are much more game using the touch screen than you always imply, but anyway the DS touch screen is something different than the new “remote”. The reason why some developers are hesitant in using it is simply because there are too many ways of controlling it, using the left thumb with or without the thumb strap, fingers, or the pen. Each of these ways has some advantages and inconvenient, some are awkward to use, so many opted to use mostly the D-Pad and buttons. So yeah this is a “weak” point for the DS (see I can be critical of Nintendo :) ).

Now if you have to play a Rev game, you have to hold at least the “remote”, so it’s ready to be moved and used as an input device. I don’t see how developers could release games that don’t use it, since it’s really intuitive and always available to any player. The minimum they could do is to use it for camera positioning, and really, if you can’t see the obvious benefit in using a 3d tracking device to position a camera then I don’t know what to tell you.

As for having the classic analog controller as a wired module, it enables you to aim the remote freely without having your hand stuck with the other. The hand movements in the Nintendo promotion video are exagerated, I’m sure you’ll be able to slash your sword in Zelda just by the flick of a wrist. Horizontal (and vertical) movements would be much more tedious with your two hands glued together by an horizontally shaped controller. Anyway if you really want that, a special add-on will enable just that (something like a wavebird that you can insert the “remote” in it).

joshua: Let’s say you are a crane operator, and you are used to move around things using joysticks. Somekind of strange creature appear and offers you a magic wand that can move around any physical object quickly just by pointing at it… I guess that you would answer something like “are you crazy? wands are for fairies, you wont catch me using a wand to move these boxes!”

Anyway, while I’m sad that Nintendo let down a few of their fans, I’m confident that they will make money on the Revolution, and that there will really be a shift in the types of games we see, and that the software market will also be profitable.

Bah… I should get my own blog :)

Posted by VL-Tone on September 17, 2005 at 12:22 AM (CDT)


Cameron Talley: yes, i’m actually aware of that. Just because i didn’t mention it, doesnt mean i don’t know it. But i can’t blame you for trying to null my comment by saying that.

VL-Tone: nice to see someone who actually puts up a good argument.

After looking into this remote alot more and seeing a public reaction to it, it’s quite apparent that Nintendo are alienating a large sector of the market through this. The reason the DS works is because NIntendo have another portable gaming device that’s jsut as good, but none of the (in my opinion) lame touch screen stuff, jsut pure straight forward gaming.
Now, i have to say, the reason i very much do not like this revolution controller is one that i can see many people loving it for.
Let’s go back a few years to ‘that’ game, Final Fantasy 7. Now, i picked this game up, and didnt like it first time. I tried again when i heard how good it became after a while of gameplay, and fell in love with it. But that was with the standard controller. That game pulled me into it using character, storyline, and gameplay. Not some gimmick. It as a quality game, and i was immersed. And, whilst being immersed, i could do other things, like move around the room if i felt like it, if my legs got dead from sitting too long, if my arms ached from playing for too long, to rub my eyes if they stung after playing too long, eating, drinking, that kinda thing…With this controller…none of this is possible. It’s a ‘give your complete and utter attention to the game, or it won’t work’ approach. Can you imagine having that control in your hand and going to rub your eyes?or jsut generaly, makign a move that would affect play. I think the very reason this ‘remote control’ doesnt bode well for games, is that it’s human nature to move a bit whilst you play.try sitting in one spot and playing for lie, 4 hours straight….it won’t happen. And don’t say ‘you wouldnt play that long’, because that jsut contradicts the whole ‘immersion into the game’ justification for this controller.
It’s a flawed concept.
it would be fun for about half hour. but that’s it. as i said, its a gimmick. Its the kind of thign a 3rd party would release on the playstation (eye-toy anyone?-except with eye toy, YOUR the controller) witha game to match, not somethign to base a console around.
I hope nintendo offer an alternate control device with this. They’re grabbing peoples attention here because it’s different, not because it’s great.
Dan x

Posted by Daniel Nicholls on September 17, 2005 at 7:52 AM (CDT)


I really don’t know about this thing. 

As a faithful Nintendo lover, I’ve remained steady through the various temptations.

But, looking at this, and the video teaser, well, it just doesn’t seem like my thing.

When I’m in serious gameplay mode, I’m basically physically lazy.  It’s part of the downtime-relaxation mode I love so much about gameplay.  Work hard all week, then kick back and relax with some games.

To do so, I really just want to hold the controller in my hand and play away, NOT swing it all over and have to move excessively and constantly, just to play.

I don’t like it at all, so far.

Posted by deg on September 18, 2005 at 11:40 AM (CDT)


It reminds me a bit of the original gun-thing controller that came with the NES, pointing it all around and playing that stupid duck shooting game.  Yeah, that really took off…

Posted by deg on September 18, 2005 at 11:46 AM (CDT)


I am VERY surprised that nobody has mentioned that Nintendo will also make a controller shell available, which the “remote” controller will plug into. The shell will be like a traditional gaming controller, most likely similar to the Gamecube controller. This will allow 3rd party developers to port games from the PS3/Xbox 360 to the Revolution.

Many 3rd party developers have praised the new controller, such as EA, THQ, Activision, UbiSoft, and Sega. Just because the controller is different doesn’t mean companies will stop making Nintendo exclusive games, in fact, it may increase the number of exclusives.

Oh, by the way deg?ello (that’s how it shows up on my Mac) have you ever been to an arcade? Every arcade shooter uses a light gun, which have different shells, but are basically all an upgraded version of the Nintendo light gun.

Posted by I-Roc Z Podder on September 18, 2005 at 3:59 PM (CDT)


but the ‘controller plug-in’ thing get is pointless. its for gamers who want traditional gaming…whats traditional about having to swign aroudn the room???? its already been reported that even when you plug in the remote to the controller, the whole ‘movement sensor’ thing is still how you control the game.

Posted by Daniel Nicholls on September 18, 2005 at 4:26 PM (CDT)


oh and as for the second comment about arcades…this console is for home gaming…not arcades. arcades have had this technology for a long time.
how many people have you seen with arcade machines in their house for multiple arcade games?
Dan x

Posted by Daniel Nicholls on September 18, 2005 at 4:28 PM (CDT)


The whole purpose of the Revolution is to reach out to people who might not have necessarily wanted to play video games before. You do not have to swing around the room, smooth and small motions work just fine. If anything, it should be more comfortable than the normal controller because you can relaxe your hand instead of using both and cramping your wrist and all. You guys are also overemphasizing the use of the use of the motion sensor. While it is a crucial and inovative enhancement to gaming, it is not all that controls the gaming, it is a mere addition. The basics of gaming still apply.

Posted by Richie on September 18, 2005 at 6:27 PM (CDT)


Yes, the basics of gaming do apply. But the basics of how to control that game are being changed.
The whole ‘easier on your hands’ argument is just rediculous. Is it easier on your hands?erm…no. infact it’s probably the exact same, if not worse as you have to hold the controller up and in range all the time (with conventional controllers you can at least rest your arms, and simply place your hands on your lap whilst playing).
is the motion snesor an addition?i thought this was called the ‘revolution’ and the whole motion sensor was the reason for that…if it wasn’t the main gist of the console, then why call it that?Nintendo has emphasised is jsut as much as we have here. you can ONLY use the motion sensor (even with the ‘conventional controller shell’...even though it makes it completely unconventiaonl by using the motion sensor).
Love it or hate it, this console is a gimmick.
Dan x

Posted by Dan Nicholls on September 19, 2005 at 3:06 PM (CDT)


You can’t conclude that it’s a gimmick when you only have a handful of pictures and some vague descriptions; I consider the DS to be pretty revolutionary, because it opened a whole new aspect of gaming but still had the basics applying. This is the same thing. The DS does not entirely rely on its touch screen to play the game. The Revo will not entirely rely on the motion sensor to play its game.

As for your point on the ‘easier on your hands’, nearly every single review from the voluntary testers at IGN, Gamespot, etcetera has described (to some effect) “being surprised at first, but then realizing how comfortable it felt in your hand and how easy it was to work”. I extremely doubt it’s going to be uncomfortable at all.

The basics of how to control the game are being changed. EXACTLY. This is the whole point of the DS, the whole point of the Revolution, to expand the gaming society into something beyond the bland double handed controller with analog sticks and such. They are trying something new, much more gutsy and interesting than any new PlayStation One Hundred Eighty Three that Sony can dish out. The basics are being changed, and change is definitely good in this situation. Props to Nintendo for this bold move.

Posted by Richie on September 19, 2005 at 8:36 PM (CDT)


I state it as a gimmick because this kind of thing has been available for years in arcades. ALl nintendo is doing is bringing it into the home. It’s as much a gimmick as the light gun, the eye toy so on so forth, only, this is a whole console based around it.

AS for your second paragraph, i didn’t say it would be umcomfrotable,. Infact, if you look to my previous post, i say it’d probably be about the same as controllers nowadays. The voluntary testers did indeed say ‘being surprised at first, but then realizing how comfortable it felt in your hand and how easy it was to work’, but that DOESN’T mean ‘it’s more comfotable than conventional controllers’ as you ststaed in your post. It will be about the same, and if you play for a long timne, common sense will tell you that no matter how comfortable a controller is, if you hold your arm out for a given amount of time, it’ll ache like crazy.
And you know, it probably won’t be uncomfrotable anyway..its a remote control…its not like you can’t go and grab one of those to see if it’s uncomfortable on anything. Nintendo stated they based it on the remote for this reason…its a universally accepted & comfortable form factor.
But again, that wasnt even what i was saying. Yes it will be comfortable n your hand. But no, after a while of holding your arm out to play the revolution, your arm will ache.

YOU contradicted yourself on two occasions in this discussion. First about the ergonomics of the controller, and second about the ‘the whole basics of the controller….’. You’ve now simply agreed with what i argued before this post.

I agreee, it’s a bold move by NIntendo. But what i don’t understand is that they could simply test the market for this ‘gimmick’ console by releasing a top-notch console to appeal to a big a market as possible, and then brining out this prehpiral for it. But alas, Nintendo have given in to the fact they’ll never beat Sony or Microsoft, and are trying to be ‘different’ for this very reason.
And besides, Sony already have a prephiral simalar to this (the eye to- did you see that cup&water; demonstration?yeah, that’s pretty much what nintendo are doing here), and they could always bring out somethign alot more similar, as could Microsoft…and both companies could do it wthout alienating their fan base as the gamers would have a CHOICE of whther they wanted to use this type of control or not.

Nintendo are jumping in the deep end without their swimming aids/arm bands on…lets hope they can swim eh?
Dan x

Posted by Daniel Nicholls on September 20, 2005 at 10:33 AM (CDT)


The Nintendo demonstration video is misleading. You don’t have to jump around the room and hold the controller up in the air to use it. YOU CAN rest your arms on your lap and still use the Revolution controller as precisely, or even more. It’s minimally like a mouse that doesn’t require a table and a mousepad (but it can do much more than that). All people that tried it, including unbiased journalist loved the controller, and they said that you could using, resting your arms, with movements smaller than a mouse. Many developers, including most of the big ones expressed very positive things about the controller. Are they being polite? I don’t think so… I think that developers are smart enough to understand that a controller that provide precise X Y Z inputs into their games is the way of the future and a great thing for gameplay.

Dan, if you think that this has anything to do with the eye-toy, well I guess I can understand how you like to ridicule the Rev controller.

The eye-toy is so much less… First you are REQUIRED to jump like an idiot in your room to use the eye-toy, unlike the Rev controller which can be used with small wrist movements with your arm resting on your lap. Another thing, the tracking on the eye-toy is just unprecise and crappy, there is no way you could use that on an FPS. The eye-toy just reacts to movements seen on a small camera, and it cannot even differentiate body parts. Also, it’s essentially 2d, as the Rev controller adds the Z axis, and 3 axis of rotation (and then there is the d-pad, buttons and analog stick that can be used at the same time). I could program my own eye-toy games in Flash in a few days, but doing the Rev controller is nothing short of impossible for mere mortals like me.

What is it with people shouting “Choice” everywhere they can? Are you working for MS or something? MS just loves to use that word, like choice was always better. (And ironically, most people stuck with Windows and Office don’t feel they have a choice.)

Nintendo is not legally required to offer the choices you are asking for. (Some people think that the DOJ MS lawsuit can apply to anything). If they gave a choice of using another more standard controller to play new games, then the new controller would become an underused gimmick, because people are afraid of change.

Hopefully, companies like Nintendo and Apple are not afraid to scare part of their fan base to pursue their own ideals.

So again, I’m sad to see that come of their real fans are not happy about this controller, but most people I see criticizing the change are really aggressive about it, and spend a lot of time to bash and ridicule the idea. You know what? I’m happy to see people like this leave the Nintendo platform, like I said before, the resulting Revolution market will crave for cheap-to-produce innovative games instead of rehashes and/or violent games costing millions to do. The market -may- be smaller (but it wont, as new or returning player will fill the void left by you), but it will be much more focused.

Nintendo doesn’t owe you anything, want to play Mario, Metroid or Zelda? Then you’ll have to obey their rules. They created the games, they can do what they want with them. And if you don’t care about Mario and company and want “standard” games and controllers, just buy an Xbox 360 or a PS3 and ignore Nintendo.

I still didn’t start a blog, but I couldn’t resist replying :)

Posted by VL-Tone on September 23, 2005 at 1:01 AM (CDT)


i’d say VL-Tone that you hit the nail on the head there.
I only compare it to the eye-toy as it seems to be the best comparison. you don’t ahve to jump about for teh eye toy, but yes, it requires significant movements.
the main thing i don’t like about he revolution is that you can do nothing except play the game. great for immersion, but if you get addicted to gaming alot more people are gunna be dying (and all cos they couldnt move to drink, eat or go to the toilet), lol, i’m kidding about that one, but yeah, the immersion level you crave in a game is a factor with this. (and don’t say ‘use ur free hand - what if im playing with with analogue stick too?what if i’m righ thanded and im currently holding the motion controller in my right hand?)....lots of factors. but i do see this as a gimmick.

You’re right that nintendo doesnt have to give us choice..but it would have been nice to see. Nintendo are only different to microsoft in the sense that they don’t use the word ‘choice’. In every other way they tie you down jsut like MS do.
I’ll stick to my ps3. this is a gimmick in my opinion. I’ll give it a go, but no money will be coming from me for it, and no effort to enter competitions to get a free one, or i wont be begging for one for xmas…so on so forth. you get the point.
each to their own.
Dan x

Posted by Daniel Nicholls on September 23, 2005 at 5:03 AM (CDT)


I’m just saying, I’m sick and tired of the same old basics for game systems. PS2 was an improved PS, Gamecube was an improved N64. PS3 will be an improved PS2. Xbox 360 will be an improved Xbox. Here’s a quick note to everyone who persists on choosing the old yet still stupidly overused ‘don’t fix it if it ain’t broken’ phrase -


If there were no changes to technology, society would cease to exist. You can not merely say that you wish to stick to the traditional forms of gaming, because the two-handed controller has existed for nigh on 15 years. Change is needed, people. This is what the Nintendo is.

How can you say it’s a gimmick? Unless you’ve actually played it, you have absolutely no evidence to back that up.

I’m not spending some 500 dollars for a souped up Xbox. When I spend that kind of money I want something new, something that’s different in dynamics than the other systems I have.

Posted by Richie on September 23, 2005 at 3:10 PM (CDT)


what the hell? don’t you use two hands to control a normal controller? With the Rev controller you have a free hand to do whatever you want with it. There is also a pause button if you need to go to the toilet. So you saying you can go to the toilet and eat lunch while still using a PS3 controller? And people are gonna die coz of simple fun games? I think more people die from hardcore violent games.

Posted by adhoc on September 23, 2005 at 11:05 PM (CDT)


and for people afraid there’s no standard controller.

a controller PLUS the sensory function AND more buttons. Nintendo are not stupid. They’ve been making games for so many years I don’t think they need you to help them decide that some games wont play as good with their remote controls.

But guess what? Next thing people will be complaining how its got too many buttons and its got this thing sticking out the top.

Posted by adhoc on September 23, 2005 at 11:57 PM (CDT)


adhoc: i referenced this controller above. its a shall. it makes no difference, and it defeats the purpose of itself. they call it ‘standard controller shell’ when, even when its in use…its not standard at all.
I don’t know about you, but i’ve read about using 2 hands for the Rev controller (when using the add-ons…which most games probably will).
my point was, even with one hand free, you can’t do what you want because the gaming is be fuly immersed or dont play at all. there’s no half way. so whether you have a hand free or not, it makes no difference.

Richie: I can say it’s a gimmick because it’s a gimmick. Just like the DS. Doesn’t mean it wont be a popular or fun gimmick. But it IS a gimmick.
as for your ‘if there were no changes to technology, society would cease to exist’...have you taken something?if there were no changes to technology, society would just live with basic technology.
i fyou want to spend your money on the revolution, go for it. We have a choice between 3 systems. I won’t pigeon hole you for choosing the Revolution, but please don’t say what you said about society not existing. that was jsut stupid.

Posted by Daniel Nicholls on September 24, 2005 at 10:38 AM (CDT)


I think you’re missing something rather large here. Society is built up with technology. When the Romans made aqueducts and roads connecting their empires, they were using technology. Not the kind of electronic gadgets we use today, but it was technology. When an early human first discovered the uses of fire, that was technology. When we piloted a spacecraft to the moon, that was technology.

Please don’t tell me that we could’ve survived without technology. That was just stupid.

Posted by Richie on September 24, 2005 at 11:10 AM (CDT)


once again you ignored what i wrote and typed a comment that made you look very silly indeed. i’ll quote directly:
‘If there were no changes to technology, society would just live with basic technology.’

*pats richie on the head* its ok. you save your pocket money and get a nice shiny revolution. i’m off.
Dan x

Posted by Daniel Nicholls on September 24, 2005 at 5:05 PM (CDT)


And once again you blatantly refuse to process a very simple comment. If there were no changes to society, society would live with the technology that it originally started with.

What are you, 9 years old?

Posted by Richie on September 28, 2005 at 4:41 PM (CDT)


quote: (Didn’t work so well for GameCube, last I checked.)

Why? Because the Gamecube sold about double the xbox did? (from the annual reports of both Microsoft and Nintendo)
Don’t say things you don’t know anything about man! Get your facts right before saying something like that.

Posted by TS on October 3, 2005 at 10:15 AM (CDT)


The “Gamecube sold about double the xbox?”

Uh, no. The Gamecube placed third worldwide. There’s only one territory in which it beat the Xbox, and that’s Japan. Even there, PS2 outsold Gamecube by a factor of more than 5 to 1.

Posted by Jeremy Horwitz on October 3, 2005 at 10:34 AM (CDT)


Erm…no, i’m not 9. however, by your lack of ability to remember what you wrote in the post before, i’d say you were probably very old, or a dumb-witted teenager.
Just to set the record straight my words were:

‘If there were no changes to technology, society would just live with basic technology’.

To which you responded:
‘Please don’t tell me that we could’ve survived without technology. That was just stupid.’

which, as you can see, is not what i told you at all, and you then went on to agree with me. This is the last time i’ll be checking this article, and responding to a dim-wit such as yourself. I bid you farewell.(learn to read & remember).
Dan x

Posted by Daniel Nicholls on October 6, 2005 at 1:21 PM (CDT)


people are doofuses for shooting down this controller. why would ALL the game developers be praising Nintendo for this new controller if it isn’t insanely awesome?

the problem is that everyone only looks at pictures and never reads the articles. THIS CONTROLLER HAS A FRIGGIN’ MOTION SENSOR INSIDE IT! this opens up infinite possibilities for gaming: imagine swinging it like a sword in a Zelda game, or swinging it like a baseball bat or golf club…it opens up so many avenues!

READ the articles before you blab your mouth off people.

and yes TS, Jeremy is right. on the NPD Top-Ten Consoles Worldwide, Ranked by Number of Units Sold, the Gamecube isn’t even on the list. the first is the PS2 Slim Console, followed by the XBox, and then followed by regular PS2, and then all the different colors of the GameBoy Advance SP (each color apparently counts as a completely different console). the Nintendo DS, though not on the list, follows closely after those.

this NOT, however, to say that the GameCube isn’t a good console…it simply goes to show that Nintendo was unwise in its marketing methods with the GameCube.

if I were to rank the three super-consoles from best to worst, the list would go: GameCube, PS2, XBox. why? because even though the GameCube failed completely sales-wise, it still had some great lasting titles that people still are obsessed with to this day! (titles like Soul Calibur 2 and Super Smash Bros. Melee). when people think PS2 or XBox, the only memorable titles that come to mind are “Halo” or “Grand Theft Auto” or “Metal Gear Solid” (all of which i think are crappy games compared to the Nintendo titles i listed). i believe this whole “GameCube, PS2, XBox” era of videogaming was simply a time where overrated consoles were the popular thing. hopefully we’ll break out of that soon.

i’m putting my hopes in Revolution to fix all that.

oh, just one little note on the Revolution…“Revolution” it probably not going to be the console’s final name (just like “Dolphin” wasn’t the Cube’s final name). has anyone read the articles on the recent showings of the Revolution at conventions and such? NO ONE has seen the word “Revolution” written anywhere (not even on the console itself)...the Nintendo reps simply keep calling it that. interesting…

Posted by tedJohnston on October 15, 2005 at 6:42 PM (CDT)

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods or accessories, or if you sell or market products, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators. Wondering why we're talking about something other than iPods? Check the Archives: Backstage has been here and kicking it since 2004.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
iLounge Weekly

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2018 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy