Hacker News Reader

Hmm, I have to disagree here. I'm actually really excited about the Joy-Con's and the Switch's portability. Mainly because you take the tablet with you and you have the ability to do same-screen co-op just like that.

For a game like Towerfall or Mariocart (Or a launch title, like Snipperclips) that is amazing. And the ability to play Zelda on an airplane sounds awesome.

I do think they flubbed a ton of stuff on the software side (and even hardware...digital triggers on the joy-cons...) mainly by making 1-2 switch a $50 title and not a pack-in, so I see that flopping hard. At this point the only reason to buy is Zelda, so in that regard it seems like a soft launch for the dedicated fans, then the real launch will be this holiday season.

I do agree on disliking motion controls for a console like this, but motion controls do have their place in VR, so maybe Nintendo has some future plans in that space...

Yeah, the portability is really cool! And the ad-hoc networking for multiplayer seems neat. The joycon controllers seem pretty neat, simple little controllers, which means you can focus on gameplay. I was really excited for it.

But... then the January demo happened. It's all dumb mini-games with shit motion controls. It's an ice cube vibration demo(?!?). It's some poorly-defined camera vision detection thing. They seem to be doubling down on awful input methods, instead of showing us good games that I want to play on hardware I want to own.

> It's all dumb mini-games with shit motion controls.

Do you mean 1-2 Switch? That's one game out of quite a few games that are coming out this year. 1-2 switch is definitely heavy on the Nintendo gimmick though.

I was somewhat surprised at how few 'gimmick' games were announced. Most of the games are standard controller-type games. Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda, Splatoon 2, and all the indie games that were announced yesterday.

Edit: You're right..forgot about Arms being motion controlled too.

What I remember from the press conference was 1-2 Switch (motion controls barf), Arms (motion controls barf), Zelda (getting it on Wii U), Splatoon (probably actually good), something about ice cubes (what), Skyrim (isn't this game like 8 years old?), some distant-future titles, and a handful of nebulous 3rd party statements of support.

Maybe I'll pick one up in a year or two if they don't lean to heavily on the motion controls gimmick after all. But I'm not holding my breath.

> I do agree on disliking motion controls for a console like this, but motion controls do have their place in VR, so maybe Nintendo has some future plans in that space...

I could see them doing something like the Samsung Gear VR for the Switch.

I disagree, I thought the use of microphone in gameplay was an interesting addition, and it's not like it's something that you had to do more than a few times total in a game. Also, there's no possible way that motion controls will be the main input for most games- it's portable.

Experimentation is great but yes it's been (and continues to be) overdone. The best games in my opinion still use the standard controller, I just got done with FFXV and I never longed for anything but that DualShock4.

> I have a Wii U and Nintendo's games insist on using the microphone for stupid gameplay mechanics, like blowing on it to move platforms.

Haha, really? They've done that crap since the Famicom. Didn't make it to the states, but the Japanese controllers had a microphone. Had to blow into it for a couple games (Japanese version of Zelda, for one). They must be really in love with that input method.

> Alternate input methods for games have failed

Is that really so? Motion controls work very well for certain niches. Some types of games are better without them, but so long as developers allow the choice of conventional inputs in cases where they don't work well, it shouldn't be a problem.

Joy stick for fighters.

Mouse and keyboard for FPS and similar games.

Traditional controller for platformers/side scrollers

Touch for a few types of games on mobile, not many though.

Almost never do I want to use motion.

Motion controls actually worked really well for the Madden series on Wii. Only, EA put some bargain-basement coders on the Wii versions, and that, coupled with the below-average graphics, are what made it not as successful a game series.

...Motion control for VR.

It works incredibly well in VR - whereas I know a fair few people find gamepad controls immersion-breaking, compared to interacting with the virtual world with your hands and your body.

Wii bowling

And tennis. And golf. And baseball. And many others where people either don't have or don't let their preconceptions steer their preferences.

Motion controls never caught on because game studios aren't interested in making games locked to one console, and motion controls are far less standardized.

> And tennis. And golf. And baseball.

Until you realize your standing-up-arm-waving strategy is being destroyed by the person sitting on the couch making little wrist flicks, who may as well be pushing buttons for all the motion they're making. And that person isn't experiencing severe RSI, the likes of which doesn't happen playing those sports for real, 5 minutes into the match.

I mean, I am not going to complain if I am sitting there taking my time diligently trying to aim my controller and then my 7 year old brother comes running around the corner with his machine gun just spamming AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA and gets an ace. It's all part of the fun. If you aren't having fun playing a video game, stop playing.

The mode of play that is more fun hurts and loses to a mode that is basically button pressing (mostly because when you're making the "real" motions it can't figure out what you're trying to do half the time, and does something else instead, while wrist-flicks are picked up reliably). The failure is (at least their implementation of) motion controls.

Was great for rail shooters, though. Don't know why they didn't make an effort to get a port of every rail shooter ever made on the Wii. Only console ever where they'd be (the only?) first-class citizens.

So, the first generation of motion control games that use that control scheme had some problems? Color me surprised.

In truth, you want to be able to play from the couch. You also want to be able to play in a more immersive style. Being able to detect one or the other and having a slider to allow more lenient play would be ideal. At the other end of the spectrum, I imagine requiring a more true translation to the actions on the screen would help prevent any RSI, as it would naturally require a wider range of actions.

It's easy to fall back on what we know because the new thing doesn't always work right and has some pains in the initial implementation. That doesn't mean we discount it entirely.

That person is also not enjoying themselves. I am with my arm waving.

Random waggling do not true motion control make.

I would posit that some limited motion controls could benefit most, if not almost all games. The big problem is the controllers are poorly adapted for motion in most cases. The Wii is able to do more with motion because the controller setup makes that possible, with the separated joystick portion and motion portion. It causes problems in that it's not as button-rich as contemporary controllers, so cross-platform titles often require changes, but when used appropriately, the motion controls can enhance play quite nicely.

Unfortunately, there's little incentive for established third party developers to put much effort into motion controls, as they want their games on as many platforms as possible and large differences in control schemes make that hard.

That said, the PSVR stuff is really the next level of motion controls. Unfortunately, it looks like they ignored where I think Nintendo had good foresight, and didn't include a way to use analog joysticks with the controllers, so it appears you either use the VR controllers or a regular Playstation controller, and there's no hybrid solution equivalent to the Wiimote nunchuck joystick (I hope I'm wrong, or they have a way to fix this with an attachment). Motion controls are still going strong, we're just still evolving past the equivalents of the Atari joystick and original NES controllers.

The Switch is supposed to have excellent hardware.

Also, the majority of people at preview events (greatly) praised the motion controls of the upcoming game ARMS. HD Rumble also is reported to be amazing.

I for one am excited to play with what may be the first really great motion controls.

If I look at all the controllers since SNES, alternate input methods were always their thing.

And since they have a big hardware divison, they need to come up with innovative ideas to sell hardware.

Nah, N64 and Gamecube were pretty standard. Buttons and joysticks.

The Gamecube, yes. But the N64 analogue stick was the first of its kind, no?

And don't forget the rumble pack on the N64. It cracks me up that Sony still calls their controller the "DualShock", since that was a direct "2 is better than 1!" response to the N64 rumble pack.

On the other hand, Sony's one-upmanship also added the 2nd analog joystick to controllers and that turned out to be incredibly important.

Well, when they added it, it was rather useless.

I think I only played one game on the PSX that really used 2 sticks and that was Ape Escape.

Only when FPS became a thing on consoles, the second stick was finally used in more than a few games.

And when did this become the case? With the XBox?

There were FPSes on PS1 and PS2 but they were not good and didn't use modern control schemes (though maybe Red Faction used it?).

I would credit Halo more than XBox for inventing/popularizing the good controller scheme for FPS games.

Eh, not really. Analog sliders were common, including Pong. The joystick itself is a clear extension of the Atari 2600 joystick. It's a small tweak to existing control methods, not a whole new paradigm like motion controls.

Yes, for todays standards.

N64 was a weird trident with a thumb-stick, PSX added these sticks later with the DualShock controller.

GC had this freaky button-layout.

The GC controller is the best gaming controller, IMHO. Followed by the SNES controller.

My hands have never cramped playing my Gamecube or SNES. They cramp constantly trying to play FF15 on my PS4 and playing Xbox isn't much better.

I love the PS4 controller. I would get hand fatigue with the PS1/2/3 controller but the PS4 is just the right shape for my hands and I never notice anything even after extended play times. I like it a lot.

The 360 controller gets my vote, but the Gamecube comes in at a close second :)

GC was the first with analog-plus-click triggers too, I think.

The showed what, 2 games that used motion controls? I wouldn't expect most games to even bother with them. I guess we'll see though.

> Alternate input methods for games have failed, but Nintendo keeps pursuing this.

The switch support standard input methods and then some.

I assume is a form of internal corporate welfare. One has to assume that the company would be bigger and healthier without the hardware division.