Revolution, Part 2

The Revolution discussion has continued over on Frosty's blog (http://www.stephenfrost.net/blog/)-- I figured I'd copy some of it back over here for you guys to check out.

The more I think about the Revolution, the more excited I get. I'm sold. At least, as sold as I can be without having played (or even seen) any actual games :)

From Nintendo's perspective, this is probably the best business direction for them. If they made a more traditional console, even if it was as powerful as the PS3, they'd likely go nowhere. Gamecube was more powerful than PS2, and it didn't help them with third-parties or any of their other problems. Sony just has too much momentum, and the ball's in their court until they drop it. So, by differenciating themselves, Nintendo has given us a reason to care/be interested/get excited about them. For some people Revolution may make sense as their only system; for hardcore gamers, it's likely a great second option behind the PS3 -- you get your quirky, innovative games and your great-looking standard types of games.

I don't think arm fatigue will be a problem, because the hands-on reports say that you only have to move the new controller just a little bit. One guy stated that the controller finally "clicked" for him when he quit waving it around like a maniac, sat down and rested it on his leg (the typical game-playing "couch poatato" position). Of course, waving it around like a maniac could be fun in small bursts.

I think that, to some degree, innovation has to be forced. It's a very valid argument that gamers already know what they like and want, and it's an uphill battle to try to sell them on something new. But, although it's risky, the upside is huge. Time and time again, Nintendo has redefined what gaming is. Hell, after Atari crashed, they brought gaming back with the NES when everyone thought they were crazy. While they haven't always been the first to try something (like an analog stick), they've certainly been the ones to popularize it. Every 3D action game today is based off of how the analog stick worked with Mario 64 and how the lock-on camera worked in Ocarina of Time.

Another important aspect of Revolution is that it's supposed to be very developer friendly. Nintendo has gone on and on about how the biggest problem facing developers and publishers is the enormous cost of making next-gen games, and that Revolution will be much simpler to create for. So, although designing games for the controller will require extra R&D, maybe that can be balanced out by a more affordable dev budget overall.

Nintendo has said that the analog stick attatchment will come packed with the system, which avoids any weird split there. But I think, what's good about the "remote" approach is that casual gamers (the type that love using the stylus with Nintendogs) likely won't ever need to use the stick. I imagine that Nintendo will create games aimed at casuals that can be played using only the remote, in which case I can totally see non-gamers that I know giving it a shot. When you add the analog stick, that's when you get into real gamer territory. And if the whole combo still isn't your idea of fun, Nintendo will be making a more traditional controller option for straight third-party ports and classic games. Hell, you'll probably be able to simply plug in an old wired Gamecube pad and use that, if the developer wants you to. Or the WaveBird.

I think that that giving developers the option to develop for a standard controller layout is a smart move -- it shows that Nintendo are being realists. They feel the need to blaze a trail, but they know that a lot of people won't want to -- or know how to -- follow them at first. When new technology is first introduced, it often has to bridge that awkward gap between the old and the new. For example, OSX macs had to support OS9 software, and Blu-Ray players will still play DVDs. Although the multiple controller option might send a somewhat muddied or confusing message to some people, I think Nintendo is smart to realize that it can't just push everyone in the direction they want all at once. At the same time, since the strange new controller is the pack in, developers will put more effort into supporting it. It's a pretty well-balanced plan.

Still though, Nintendo aren't likely to lure developers to make as many games for Revolution as they will for PS3 and 360. That might not matter, though. For better or worse, I think that Nintendo fans have become increasingly used to longer waits between the few big games that make owning their systems worthwhile. This isn't the best scenario for Nintendo or gamers, but it says something about Nintendo players. The ones that have stuck around want quality over quantity, and have proven to be a pretty patient bunch. Seriously, do most of Nintendo's current fans care if Prince of Persia 3 or Tony Hawk Whatever come out for their system or not? Most likely they only bought it for Nintendo's own games in the first place. Maybe this strategy won't topple Sony, but it might be good enough to sustain the profit-leading position Nintendo's always managed with its smaller audience. And, as a gamer, innovation is one of the things I demand of developers -- since I've got the dollars, I have that right. Should I be satisfied if presented with a scenario where game design always stays pretty much the same from now on, just to make it easy on the game makers?

Whether you think Nintendo's plan is an overall good or bad one, God bless 'em for pushing the envelope -- somebody has to. For the most part, the only true gaming innovations have come from them. It's great that PS3 and 360 will have HD graphics and all, but every once and awhile a true change is healthy.

Look at it this way:

ROUND 1: REVOLUTION (NES)
ROUND 2: EVOLUTION (SNES, Genesis)
ROUND 3: REVOLUTION (N64, PlayStation)
ROUND 4: EVOLUTION (Gamecube, PS2, Xbox)

NEXT ROUND: REVOLUTION (Nintendo Revolution) / EVOLUTION (PS3, Xbox 360)

If Nintendo *didn't* do something freaky, this would be the first time that we've ever gone three console generations in a row without a big shake up to keep games feeling fresh and new.

Personally, I think that the ideas behind Revolution are fantastic and I love Nintendo for trying it. It's really going to come down to actual games that can wow us with how the controls are used. That, and Nintendo is going to have to market this thing really carefully -- they have to get across the idea without making it seem overly alien or complex. That's going to be a much bigger challenge than simply making fun games, I think.

I could still see the system being a complete and total failure, but I can also imagine it really taking off, too. This isn't anything against developers at all, but I think that there's a real problem with the industry if it can't support fresh new ideas. Sometimes I do feel like Sony and Microsoft have taken the industry down the wrong road. I mean, I can't wait to play hyper-realistic games like MGS4, but if I'd never seen them, I wouldn't lust after them so much. People were pretty much happy with Game Boy for decades before PSP showed up with its super graphics. What I'm saying is, the industry keeps making things harder on itself. I think Nintendo has made a lot of sense in its arguments against the way things are being done. All this extra work to make prettier games, and what has it gotten the industry? Movie-sized budgets, longer and more complex development cycles, and a consumer base that's been taught to constantly demand better, faster. And yet, games cost roughly the same that they did back in the 16-bit era when they could be made by a handful of people in a fraction of the time, at a fraction of the cost. Is this smart business?

Anyway, I digress :)

Just for fun, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the Revolution will actually sell more than the Gamecube. Of course, I've yet to hold the controller in my own hand, but I look at it like this: Gamecube got its butt kicked by Sony because it offered essentailly the same product and the same experience, only not as good (no DVD playback, an overall weaker game lineup, etc.). There were other factors, too -- such as the "kiddy vs. cool" factor -- but essentailly, Nintendo was trying to sell a PlayStation that wasn't as compelling as the real PlayStation. With the Revolution, it's good that they're offering something unique and different. Even if you're buying it as a second system, at least there's still a reason to buy it. And also, I'm willing to trust Nintendo. They're not stupid -- they know how bold this move is. If they didn't have rock-solid games in the works, if they didn't believe in their hearts that this thing was going to be 100% fun, they wouldn't take this big of a risk.

Believe ;P