The Nintendo Revolution's Controller

I could see this working as an optional peripheral, but holy crap. Nintendo can't seem to get it through their skulls that they had controller schemes pretty much figured out with the SNES. It will, however, provide the authentic Duck Hunt experience minus the "PKANG!" Whoo.

I liked it better the first time when it was called the *zapper*.

Really, I can't see right now how it would be comfortable holding that controller and trying to hit those vertical A and B buttons..

In concept, it's a good idea, but they'd have to remodel the shape of the controller for me to want to use it.

And..if this was such a good idea, why don't all computer games use mice exclusively?

Yes! Yes! Yes! Nintendo has finally redeemed itself!

This is one of the greatest things I have ever seen! It's like lightgun + controller and they actually did it well!

Anyway, the reason this is better than a mouse is because it has 3d (not 2d) and tilting detection.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION! ^^

i kinda like it. i guess nintendo wanted it to shape like a remote to appeal to tv watching ppl, works with me. but yeah they should have made it a bit more curvish so it goes with your hand and does make numb after hours of playing (not saying i play hours of video games everyday)

The creation of this unique controller may be the most impressive thing ive seen in terms of new gaming concepts in years. i actually find myself wanting the system.

Well for mice you need a surface.

Maybe a few small details here and there...but this definitely looks like something I could like gaming with.

I like it and I don't like it. I don't understand why Nintendo insists on sacrificing conventional controller setups for innovative design when it's perfectly plausible to to both.
One thing I simply do not understand, those two buttons on the bottom are there so that you can hold the thing sideways and use it like an NES controller. So why the hell not put in two more buttons so you can use it like an SNES controller? (I have a similar complaint about the GBA, which has received a lot of SNES ports)

Okay, so let's compare. Today's controllers have two joysticks, each of which register two axes of movement (two-dimensional circle), four shoulder buttons, and 8 face buttons (D-pad and your usual right hand buttons). Not to mention clicking joysticks and start and select.

Now, Revolution controller has five face buttons (seven if you use two hands to reach those two on the bottom) and one shoulder button. Now, it has 3dimensional motion sensor (spherical range) and a separate rotation sensor that senses rotation on three axes. Plus, standard joystick peripheral (you plug peripheral things into the remote's bottom) has one joystick and two shoulder buttons. (With the joystick pluging you essentially have an N64 button layout. Left index on Z, left middle on R, d-pad = C buttons, A obvious, and B right index)

Now, obviously the Revolution can't do some things that the traditional 20 something button controller can due simply to design, however it can accomplish things that normal controllers could never hope to do. You can fly an airplane by moving the controller as if it were an actual airplane. You can steer a car by rotating it, accelerate with anologue sensitivity by tipping forward or lowering the controller. What's more, you can make a virtual hand in the game reach over and grab something by literally reaching over with your own hand and hitting a button with your thumb. You could put your hand forward and hit A to nock and arrow, then move your hand backwards to pull it, tilt to aim it, and let go of A to fire.

I find it somewhat amusing that, with this setup, Nintendo Revolution is setting up to the THE CONSOLE for First Person Shooters. Move with a joystick, aim with your controller, squeeze the trigger.

While I just can't understand their refusal to allow conventional controller setups, there are mountains of potential here. If only there were just a couple more buttons in an easy to access spot...

Well, I mainly like action games and RPGs.

So if Nintendo wants to commit to shooter games, it'll have trouble getting my business.

(I'll end up buying whatever system gets the most RPG contracts from good companies.)

It's not really the idea of the controller that bugs me, I think it's cool to be able to point it at the screen and move it around as if a mouse. But I hate teh 'remote control' shape, both aesthetically and practically because I don't want to have to hold my arm up like that all the time.

Make it a gun shape, joystick-esque shape, or regular controller shape, it'd be fine. But I don't like the current shape.

I'm not saying Nintendo will commit to shooter games, I'm saying shooter games will commit to revolution.

Well, your average RPG doesn't really need a lot of buttons.
Aiming and steering are the most obvious examples of the motion sensor use, but there are definitely more, and those two only take advantage of the rotation.
Imagine a game where you attack in any direction in 3D space by quickly jerking the controller in that direction. Imagine a game where you hold a button and move down to compress a spring, then tilt the controller to decide what direction it will jump.
An RPG in the Mario tradition could have you actually swinging the controller like a hammer for a "timed attack". You could have an action RPG where you draw symbols in the air as you run around in order to cast spells on the fly. Think about changing the orientation of gravity with this controller. Shifting your weight as you charge into battle to avoid being knocked down by attacks. Running around and angling your jumps. You can have a realistic swordfighting sim. In face, the controller can directly simulate just about any handheld item, a tennis racket, sword, baseball bat, fishing rod, staff...
And who says you have to use only one? Many games could use two controllers. Dual weilding. Twice the buttons, twice the sensors. One controls camera, one controls steering.

You all HAVE played Katamari Damacy, right? I will be shocked if a sequel never appears on Revolution.

And of course, there's the peripheral plug in that essentially allows any game to have its own controller.


I think it needs some clarification as the news sites don't seem to explain this very clearly. The controller has two separate forms of motion sensor, transitive and rotational. It senses when you move up, down, left, right, forward, and backwards, and it also senses rotation.

All that said, it's gonna take a bit of negotiating for Nintendo to get more RPG contracts than the other two. Personally, I think I'm looking to the 360 before the PS3 simply because of price. But I'm a Nintendo fan to the end.

To get an idea for many different ways the rotational sensors can work I suggest people play Wario Ware Twisted. Seriously, I think it might be the most intuitive game I have ever played. It has actually sold a GBA to a couple of people I know. You pick it up and use it, and it just makes sense to your hands.


Edit: Missed the bottom part there ^_^;;
I aggree totally. I really don't like the look of the thing. Looks too much like a bare TV remote. But this isn't the final design, and neither is the system design pictures they have. I think we can expect to at least see some changes for handheldability. And holding your arm in the air for long periods of time does sound like a pain.

I suppose if the situation calls for it, you can just plug in a gamecube controller. It has the ports for it.

Well, I think the only RPG I really missed by not getting Gamecube was Tales of Symphonia. So odds are I'll be staying with Sony.

To add to Krail's point and answer his question about backwards compatibility...

I had an idea today regarding that little expansion port. What if nintendo released an attachment that emulates the SNES controller perfectly, with the button layout and other shoulder button? With the sale, they could have a deal that allows the download of a good set of classic games for free. They would sell like hotcakes if it was a good deal.

As for the basic shape, you have to keep in mind that one of Nintendo's target demographics with the Revolution is the non-gamer. They may have gone for a shape that feels familiar for that demographic: the remote. From there, they probably played around with it to find something that works naturally for gaming. Someone may have swung their remote around like a sword and the boss said "Ooo, I like that."

And if you're worried about RPGs and Action games... Squenix and Konami have both said they like it. Hell, Hideo Kojima reportedly loves it. EXPECT RPGs and Action games.

You guys seem to forget that the controler is one handed. Think of what you could do with too (and I'm not talking about useing the analogue adapter.

Or even better. You could play games while eating cake! Now we can have our cake and eat it, too! Literally!

Also, I like the analogue stick being an add on is something I consider a wise decision because that means the analogue stick can be replaced without buying a new controller.

now mind, I'm not a big gamer. I can play Tetris and that's about it. But the thing I like about this new controller idea is that I could get some damned shooting galleries and not have to go find a damned lightgun.

I can play Tetris and shooting games. That's about my full ability. So this has a great potential for me...


oohhh could you imagine playing Tetris with that thing? that'd be awesome!!!

yes, I know I'm sad

The thing that has amazed ME about this controller is that it's basic nature makes me more open to genres I do not normally play, like FPSes and even sports. I love the idea of swinging the controller to hit a baseball.