Nintendo Revolution (tentatively titled) revealed:

[ViewtifulMisho]

Man, this thing sounds so cool. It would be perfect for a fencing game.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3143782

Make sure you read the impressions.

[Gav]

Apart from the fact that it's a console ... the controller looks rubbish.

[ViewtifulMisho]

The nunchaku setup looks awesome. And if it's as accurate and responsive as 1up says it is, it can make for some amazing games.

[Gav]

It's not the first console to have a controller that you moved around. Didn't the play station, or was it a Sega, have a fishing rod? Then their's the eye toy. what about those guns you used to be able to get? It's a gizmo and the Japanaese love those so I see Nintendo playing to their core audience. It doesn't even look like a particularly comfortable joypad to use ... In fact it looks like a Sky remote controller and you can already play games [badly] with those. Overall styling looks good, but at the end of the day it is just a console.

[Tai Wilson]

Wow. The controller looks terrible. But maybe it's better than it looks. If it works well, it could be pretty cool, but it doesn't look like it'll work.

[ViewtifulMisho]

Originally Posted by Gav

Overall styling looks good, but at the end of the day it is just a console.

Damn, and they were actually trying to make a log cabin.

[Welted 24/7]

There's a lot of things that still need fixing with games...but the controller isn't one of them. Bad idea, and their already lousy third-party support is going to completely vanish because of it.

This is a very good way to stay solidly in last in the console race.

[Westley]

I kind of like it. And Gav, man, look at the PS3, non-believer. Computers are fading as the main game system. Hell, look at the Killzone preview. I mean, I love the computer and all, but consoles are really friggin cool. I like nintendo actually, and things like this controller because it provides another dimension computers can't. But seriously, Halo 2 was insanely fun, in every sense of the way- and in a lot of ways better than even Unreal simply because of the campaign- and it's multiplayer was more enjoyable (For me personally) than Counterstrike. I never liked Counterstrike, and probably never will. I'm not saying comp games aren't worth playing, just that consoles are worth looking at. They're better for certain types of games, especially sports games. I love sports games. And they tend to be better at racing games too. Burnout is orgasmic! They're also better at Hack+Slash and platform games- IE Onimusha 3, God of War (also orgasmic), and Oddworld games, or Ratchet +Clank, or any Nintendo Game ever. Like the Zelda Games. And the good RPG's tend to be on the consoles. Like Final Fantasy. For straight out shooters- the comp always whooped consoles- but look at Gears of War on the 360, and, on a console twice as powerful as that, Killzone, I-8, and Killing Day. Those were just off the top of my head. They seem to have the sort of total in-depth world involvement of Doom 3 and Half Life 2. The only question now is if X-Box Live will be able to handle serious online play- it was never a good system. For Online Play, I think the Comp will still stay ahead until at least the next generation, at least ahead of Sony, which doesn't have anything like Live. The 360 seems to actually be based around it's online play. And the Revolution? Well, let's just say we don't have to worry about that baby. So your Battlefield 2 will be precious for a while now. Counterstrike isn't- the only good thing about it was it's mods- and I think the 360 will be able to take mods from the comp and apply them to the game the way they do on the comp. Mods galore, baby. We may be able to update graphics even as they age. (you can actually even do this with the current x-box, to a point.) Well, I'm done.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Westley

I kind of like it. And Gav, man, look at the PS3, non-believer. Computers are fading as the main game system. Hell, look at the Killzone preview. I mean, I love the computer and all, but consoles are really friggin cool. I like nintendo actually, and things like this controller because it provides another dimension computers can't. But seriously, Halo 2 was insanely fun, in every sense of the way- and in a lot of ways better than even Unreal simply because of the campaign- and it's multiplayer was more enjoyable (For me personally) than Counterstrike. I never liked Counterstrike, and probably never will. I'm not saying comp games aren't worth playing, just that consoles are worth looking at. They're better for certain types of games, especially sports games. I love sports games. And they tend to be better at racing games too. Burnout is orgasmic! They're also better at Hack+Slash and platform games- IE Onimusha 3, God of War (also orgasmic), and Oddworld games, or Ratchet +Clank, or any Nintendo Game ever. Like the Zelda Games. And the good RPG's tend to be on the consoles. Like Final Fantasy. For straight out shooters- the comp always whooped consoles- but look at Gears of War on the 360, and, on a console twice as powerful as that, Killzone, I-8, and Killing Day. Those were just off the top of my head. They seem to have the sort of total in-depth world involvement of Doom 3 and Half Life 2. The only question now is if X-Box Live will be able to handle serious online play- it was never a good system. For Online Play, I think the Comp will still stay ahead until at least the next generation, at least ahead of Sony, which doesn't have anything like Live. The 360 seems to actually be based around it's online play. And the Revolution? Well, let's just say we don't have to worry about that baby. So your Battlefield 2 will be precious for a while now. Counterstrike isn't- the only good thing about it was it's mods- and I think the 360 will be able to take mods from the comp and apply them to the game the way they do on the comp. Mods galore, baby. We may be able to update graphics even as they age. (you can actually even do this with the current x-box, to a point.) Well, I'm done.

Oh Westley you are showing you are age...

Console games are aimed at the lowest common denominator. Aka the tabloid end of the market. The dumb end if you will. You find occasional gems - but these seem to be the exception proved by the rule. So don't get me wrong there are the occasional good games.
Regarding this console .... do I have restate again? It does nothing new that we haven't seen before. So why should I feel excited about it? It won't sell well either as Nintendo have started to play to their core market - Japan.

I could answer each and every one of your points but time is short and I have to go out in a few minutes but I will spend some time talking to you about RPGs. You appear to not know a good RPG when they come up and bite you so:

And the good RPG's tend to be on the consoles. Like Final Fantasy.

This is a lot of rubbish. Here are three games that you should have played on a PC:

System Shock 2 (and one I suppose)
Baldurs Gate 1 and 2 (although I think that that those may have been ported over by now)
Planescape Torment

I hate to say this but I've always found Zelda to be for ... kids.

And I'd like to see a good 'Rome: Total War' released on the console.

[Westley]

I hate all RTS's besides Warcraft and Starcraft, Rome: Total War isn't my kind of thing.

[LUDICROUS]

RTW would...blow on console. IMO.

All console controls look retarded. Look at the Nintendo 64...wacky. But it works.

And i'm sure this new Nintendo thing will, too. Will take a bit of time to get used to it..

[Sciurus-Rex]

But can I use it to play Zork?

[ViewtifulMisho]

Guys, leave the video games talk to the big boys. (;

Consoles and PCs will always be two different entities in the video game world. There's no point in saying one is better than the other because they're not in direct competition. They aim at different goals.

Console games aim for accessibility and homogeny within a title.
PC games aim for not-static titles that change along with their users.

They will never be the same, and the fact that Microsoft is slowly trying to merge the two is a reason they won't be successful in the long term.

Comparing the two is like comparing summer action movies and arthouse dramas, or foil and epee for that matter. It doesn't work because they have different goals. And don't be so condescending when someone disgrees with your opinion, because then you're the one that "shows your age" (what a ridiculous comment).

As far as power is concerned, when a generation of consoles come out, they're always more powerful than the PCs of the time (in terms of gaming). Within a year or two, PCs take over. Consoles are a static platform while PCs are a variable one. Again -- apples and oranges.

=========================

Anyway, this will become the new interface design. Just as d-pads replaced dials and control sticks replaced d-pads, this controller will replace control sticks.

The simple reason is interface theory: the optimal interface is a non-existant one. Obviously, this is impossible, so it remains a theoretical goal. But anything that moves in that direction is a progressive step.

Dials were first -- there you had to use your brain to translate a desired translational movement on-screen to a rotational movement on the controller, to a finger movement to produce the desired rotation

D-pads were next -- direct translational movements are possible, but, of course, speed of movement is either constant or is based on the amount of time a button is held

Control sticks came after -- what an achievement! Analog movement is now possible, so that any direction and any speed can be achieved instantaneously. Let's look at the human-to-game process: Translate a character's movement to a tilt in the control stick, translate a thumb movement to that tilt in the control stick. Not bad -- a seemingly minimal interface. Control sticks, as advanced as they are, only control movement on one 2D plane at a time. So even though they are used for 3D games, they only offer the player two-dimensional manipulation.

"Free-hand" controller -- I don't know what Nintendo's controller will wind up being named, but this is the next step forward. This is what imagination brings us. The interface process is slashed another step. Translate a character's movement to a hand motion. THAT'S ALL, and that's incredible (read the impressions in the linked article).
Not only that, but it allows for full 3D movement, not just movement within a 2D plane, but manipulation in 3D space.

Whatever the final controller will be, something very like it will become the new console control standard (although it might take something like 3 years). You can quote me on that and make me look foolish if it doesn't happen. :p

But, please, guys, be nicer to each other, especially when you have little experience with or haven't studied the video game industry.

[Westley]

First of all, me and Gav know the gaming industry. Just because we don't share the same view as each other, or, more importantly, you, does not mean we don't. I like the way you talked about the Revolution's controller- I hadn't though about it like that. But it is limited, obviously- you can't push it forward just to run forward- you would run into the tv, so obviously it doesn't totally work, but moving it forward can zoom, and then there's the whole ability to twist, etc. It is cool. But I doubt it'll work for a 1st person shooter- although- I could kind of see it, move with the nunchaku analog and shoot and interact with the remote. But it's not like the Revolution is going to be able to graphically support shooters like that anyway. Not in competition with the PS3. In a way, I fondly remember the playstation, b/c back then even though the graphics weren't as good the gameplay was the same, and your mind had to use your imagination to fill in the graphics. Back then, we always wanted more and better graphics, but better graphics really haven't made the games all that much better. It's interesting to watch how games develop over the years....

[Zhi]

I already stopped playing those nintendo's and even playstion...
What I'm playing right now was an ONLINE(pc games), an RPG kind of game. the title is RAGNAROK ONLINE. It was originated in Korea... It's fun!!!

[Westley]

Eh, MMORPG's are dangerous. WoW is one of the few that doesn't totally suck, but I prefer to have somewhat of a life. Besides, you can't really play it with your buds. I mean, if they all have it on the same server, you can, but they likely have lives too. I prefer a more mobile game you don't have to always play. Battlefield 2- now that right there is a good online multiplayer game. And I prefer twitch based games anyway.