Nintendo Revolution Controller Revealed


Recommended Posts

So you can say Microsoft has been there  :laugh:

586533051[/snapback]

stop-posting.gif

Seriously, I have only been here 1 day and you are the biggest fanboy and one of the most annoying people I have ever seen on a forum.

Are you sure MS isn't paying you for posting the stuff you post?

What I meant is you can see a piece there that's thin and with few buttons on the right side,

on the left side (seperated by the ball) you see a semi analog d-pad and some buttons. Now that must remind you of something.

Freestyle Pro had tilt sensing like the new revolution controller and was even marketed as REVOLUTIONary. You can't deny that on the fact that there were just few games that supported it!

Anyway I'm not claiming Nintendo is copying anything, THEY ARE NOT. It's just a funny coincidance.

I could see a few cases where this could be neat. But for the vast majority, this could be Nintendo out-doing themselves, and actually managing to make a worse controller than the god-awful GameCube pad.

Very interesting to say the least, i think this will bring a lot out of their first party games. Both the DS and Revolution are more hands on than their competitors, but i see it only working for the DS. It's gonna be tough to play third party games. But Nintentdo probably made the controller with that in mind and it might actually end up being really good.

Either way I cant wait, it's gonna be very intersting.

I could see a few cases where this could be neat.? But for the vast majority, this could be Nintendo out-doing themselves, and actually managing to make aworse> controller than the god-awful GameCube pad.

586533086[/snapback]

Have anyone tested it yet? Nope...

But I understand your concern.

I think it looks great. The big thing is you don't *see* the functionality from the pictures. The tilt and directional sensors are entirely invisible. Imagine this with Metroid:

You control your position with the analog stick attachment. Forward, back, strafe left and right. With the d-pad side, you point your head to aim and fire. You're not just pressing a button or stick to change your direction, you're physically moving your hand to do so. It brings direct manipulation to the console world, something that PC gamers have had forever with a mouse. It may not seem major, but direct manipulation in the console space is absolutely huge.

In addition, I think this is going to force people to get more creative when making games. I'm sick of what is essentially the same set of games over and over with differing storylines and graphics. With a new controller to think about, I bet this will inspire some really great games. Nothing that requires a crazy backstory to play, just something simple and fun. Imagine Super Monkey Ball or Katamary Damacy on this thing, for example!

well.. my friend and I were refreshing IGN like mad when it all happened. Excited we are. and Surprised we are too.

I stayed away from neowin - not for any specific reason. We were just refreshing IGN, thats all.

We are very excited to see that controlling a game will be different in many different ways. We discussed what would make a good game with that and we both agree, When the revolution gets good games - the revolution controller will shine.

that being said i'm still refreshing IGN like mad to see the full keynote. and I'm interested in the xbox 360 keynote as well,. Anybody know when the PS3 keynote is?

I have been a PC gamer for years. I have always chosen to play PC games over console games. I like how you use the mouse to look around in FPS and control the cursor in RTS games. This will also be a very different experience than what most people are used to in playing games. I for one believe that Nintendo has just revived my love for console games for the first time since the SNES.

I read the article, and I think the whole concept is stupid. I'm tired of seeing bongo drums, dance mats, wired analog sticks that slide into essentially broken controllers, and requiring backward compatibility with older controllers to make the console useable. Apparently, breaking a capable controller design into two separate peices you'll need to buy separately, and assemble controllers before playing games, etc. is equivalent to "innovative design." It would be innovative if you owned the company and you found a new way to suck the blood from the consumers, but I simply fail to see why any of you think this is good from an end user standpoint.

And just for the record, the Gamecube controller did suck. The giant buttons on the top that required you to push them in almost a complete inch before they done anything, the analog stick (now you can purchase this separately! Yay!) had horrible traction and your thumb would constantly slip, the buttons on the side are a pain to use with any sort of accuracy so action-packed games are nearly impossible, etc. It was a huge step up from the N64, but it is nowhere near "the most comfortable one around."

586532390[/snapback]

it depends on what games u play on it of course most common 3d games its good for gc controllers looking at ur avatar i assume that u r a mega man fan and i understand that this kind of controllers wont be good for classic games like KOF, SF, mega man and castlevania.

But posibilities are endless for me the best control so far its snes its lite, precise and not heavy.

-bYtE,Sep 16 2005, 06:54]Have anyone tested it yet? Nope...

But I understand your concern.

586533091[/snapback]

I'm just trying to imagine the sensation of holding those two items in my hands or trying to play Zelda with my TV remote and it seems like a terrible experience.

I certainly could be wrong, and I'll definitely try it out (either at a store, or a friend's house). But it makes me wary of the Revolution. I bought a GameCube, used it for nothing but Smash Bros for a while... Played a little Metroid, played a little Zelda (and was very disappointed, not by the gameplay but by the lack of actual content and the endless sailing timesink), and a little Mario Kart when it first came out. It hasn't even been turned on in at least 8 months, maybe more. It just seems like a waste. Though I do have a little bit of hope for the next Zelda game.

I like Nintendo and I'm by no means predicting their failure. But the thing is, I no longer expect to be impressed by them. They've lowered my expectations to pretty much nothing.

On the other hand, I have high expectations for the Xbox 360. I'll be happy with my purchase if it meets or exceeds my expectations. Whereas, the Revolution is going to have to exceed my expectations before I'll even consider buying it.

I'm just trying to imagine the sensation of holding those two items in my hands or trying to play Zelda with my TV remote and it seems like a terrible experience.

I certainly could be wrong, and I'll definitely try it out (either at a store, or a friend's house).  But it makes me wary of the Revolution.  I bought a GameCube, used it for nothing but Smash Bros for a while... Played a little Metroid, played a little Zelda (and was very disappointed, not by the gameplay but by the lack of actual content and the endless sailing timesink), and a little Mario Kart when it first came out.  It hasn't even been turned on in at least 8 months, maybe more.  It just seems like a waste.  Though I do have a little bit of hope for the next Zelda game.

I like Nintendo and I'm by no means predicting their failure.  But the thing is, I no longer expect to be impressed by them.  They've lowered my expectations to pretty much nothing.

On the other hand, I have high expectations for the Xbox 360.  I'll be happy with my purchase if it meets or exceeds my expectations.  Whereas, the Revolution is going to have to exceed my expectations before I'll even consider buying it.

586533219[/snapback]

You say they lowered your expectations to nothing yet you define no reason why, all I heard was the Xbrick raised your expectations, yet it's a conventional system, you also did not say any reason on why that rose your expectations either.

I'm just trying to imagine the sensation of holding those two items in my hands or trying to play Zelda with my TV remote and it seems like a terrible experience.

I certainly could be wrong, and I'll definitely try it out (either at a store, or a friend's house).  But it makes me wary of the Revolution.  I bought a GameCube, used it for nothing but Smash Bros for a while... Played a little Metroid, played a little Zelda (and was very disappointed, not by the gameplay but by the lack of actual content and the endless sailing timesink), and a little Mario Kart when it first came out.  It hasn't even been turned on in at least 8 months, maybe more.  It just seems like a waste.  Though I do have a little bit of hope for the next Zelda game.

I like Nintendo and I'm by no means predicting their failure.  But the thing is, I no longer expect to be impressed by them.  They've lowered my expectations to pretty much nothing.

On the other hand, I have high expectations for the Xbox 360.  I'll be happy with my purchase if it meets or exceeds my expectations.  Whereas, the Revolution is going to have to exceed my expectations before I'll even consider buying it.

586533219[/snapback]

For my case I have loved almost every title on GC. From Zelda to Metroid. I've played on my GC alot. And it didn't end until DS came...

It's the quite opposite for me. I have really greate expectation now, I would love to test this way of playing games now.

And I have no interest in 360 at all. Of all the titles I have seen, there is only 2 games that is of any interest. But it's just opinions, and everyone have them...

I personally think its great. Very intuative and gives plenty of room for new gameplay styles.

I applaud Nintendo for their bravery and ingenuity.

586533348[/snapback]

Bravery? More like stupidity, there is a big number of gamers that have a disability of somekind. Now if their disability effects their hand (like me) or co-ordination then how the hell are they meant to use the controller? I think Nintendo have just lost the vast majority of disabled customers.

Also how are multi platform games expected to work.

Omg I hope people are watching the video! This is going to be fun to play with :D. Man talk about innovation. Great job Nintendo!

Lazy Tiger: I'm sure that you'll be able to use the GC controller for most games. For example, you dont need to use a wheel to play driving games. I'm sure they've thought this over.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Windows ME was worse.
    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      453
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!