Wii HD in 2011?

[Galactus]

Report: Wii HD "set for 2011"
Wednesday 1-Oct-2008 9:54 AM
Veteran games journo files a report on a new Wii...
Citing "multiple sources in the game industry" veteran games journalist John Davison has filed a report on a new Wii, set to launch in 2011.


Posted at WhatTheyPlay, the story says that Nintendo is currently "showing early presentations of its next home console hardware". It's going under the name Wii HD, suggesting a significant graphical overhaul.

Davison admits details are sketchy but says his sources are pointing towards "a greater emphasis on digitally distributed and backwardly compatible content". Nintendo will once again focus on innovating the console's controller.

Davison, who is extremely well connected and respected in the game industry, points towards surging R&D costs at Nintendo as supporting evidence of his story.

 

[Raiden]

Well, I'd think that all 3 companies (Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo) are already developing the next-gen console in secrecy. It takes a long time to design and develop a machine like this, so I'd not surprised to heard news about Wii HD. However, it also mean that Nintendo will not improve Wii and will probably just keep it until its successor premieres. If they can just give us an external HD I'll be happy.

 

[StrainedEyes]

As long as all my VC downloads will transfer over and there will be built in HD, I'll be happy. I love having an all-in-one retro gaming system.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Using stuff like AA at 16Q and AF at 16 is alot more demanding than upscaling an images resolution and generally improves the image alot more. 1080p and 60 frames per a second as opposed to being capped at 30 fps will the standard I think.

 

[Brainiac 8]

As long as all my VC downloads will transfer over and there will be built in HD, I'll be happy. I love having an all-in-one retro gaming system.

This is how I feel. I have collected a rather large VC and WiiWare collection, so I would just like the ability to transfer the information.

If they do that, then I'll be set.

 

[The Bruce]

What about your VC collection if the Wii dies?

 

[Timstuff]

Better 5 years late than never.

I just hope that Nintendo is investing in REAL next-gen hardware that can actually compete with PS4 and Xbox 720 in terms of horsepower, and that they're not going to simply make a console that's up to snuff with the current gen, and call it a day before reaching truly a nex-gen level. While it would be out of character for Nintendo to make a system that plays movies, given that Blu-Ray is probably going to be standard next gen Nintendo would look pretty foolish if they stuck with DVDs next time around, and if they're already pouring money into blu-ray drives they might as well let people watch movies on it.

It will take a lot for Nintendo to lure me back from Sony, but if they actually put some serious effort into their next system and focus more on quality than getting the absolute lowest price tag, I might be there. Next generation, I'm planning to sit back and watch a while before I jump aboard a new console, so it will be interesting to see how things shape up if we have 3 powerhouses instead of 2 plus a budget priced "family system."

 

[Havok83]

It will take a lot for Nintendo to lure me back from Sony, but if they actually put some serious effort into their next system and focus more on quality than getting the absolute lowest price tag, I might be there. Next generation, I'm planning to sit back and watch a while before I jump aboard a new console, so it will be interesting to see how things shape up if we have 3 powerhouses instead of 2 plus a budget priced "family system."

Nintendo lost me at the SNES. That was the last great system they put out IMO and I havent looked back since dropping them as home console owner

 

[Timstuff]

Nintendo lost me at the SNES. That was the last great system they put out IMO and I havent looked back since dropping them as home console owner

It took me a bit longer-- I was still on board until about halfway through the Gamecube's lifespan. I was getting completely sick of Nintendo saying no to things like online play, and their refusal to use DVDs for their system, instead using proprietary discs which were not only very limited in capacity, but they were also more expensive than DVDs. These both ended up causing Gamecube to miss out on tons of multi platform games, and the ones it got were usually stripped down and missing online play. Eventually I broke down and bought a PS2, and was hoping for the best for "Revolution." But when I found out the direction Nintendo was going for with "Wii," I was unimpressed and I decided to stay with Sony.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Nintendo lost me at the SNES. That was the last great system they put out IMO and I havent looked back since dropping them as home console owner

N64 was great, while it may have had a limited number of games, the games it did have were great.

 

[Timstuff]

N64 had some good games, but its library was dwarfed by the PlayStation's. Nitnendo shot themselves in the foot when they stuck with carts instead of embracing CDs. They had no 3rd party support, because no-one wanted to pay Nintendo's expensive licensing fees or the manufacturing costs for the carts. And to make matters worse, companies like Square jumped ship because they wanted to utilize the superior capacity of CD Roms. 2 GB of memory across 3 CDs was a no-brainer in comparison to 80 MB max, expecially when the game on disc costs $1.00 to manufacture while the cartridge costs $10.00 or more.

The N64 was where Nintendo first dropped the ball. The market was already embracing CD-based game systems, but Nintendo insisted that their proprietary format would be a success. This is the same problem that doomed the Gamecube, where Nintendo made a half-assed attempt to integrate DVD technology without actually going all the way. With N64, Nintendo should have used CDs. With Gamecube, they should have used DVD 9s. In both cases they refused to embrace the market trend, and in both cases they got spanked in the toosh for it.

 

[Timstuff]

N64 had some good games, but its library was dwarfed by the PlayStation's. Nitnendo shot themselves in the foot when they stuck with carts instead of embracing CDs. They had no 3rd party support, because no-one wanted to pay Nintendo's expensive licensing fees or the manufacturing costs for the carts. And to make matters worse, companies like Square jumped ship because they wanted to utilize the superior capacity of CD Roms. 2 GB of memory across 3 CDs was a no-brainer in comparison to 80 MB max, expecially when the game on disc costs $1.00 to manufacture while the cartridge costs $10.00 or more.

The N64 was where Nintendo first dropped the ball. The market was already embracing CD-based game systems, but Nintendo insisted that their proprietary format would be a success. This is the same problem that doomed the Gamecube, where Nintendo made a half-assed attempt to integrate DVD technology without actually going all the way. With N64, Nintendo should have used CDs. With Gamecube, they should have used DVD 9s. In both cases they refused to embrace the market trend, and in both cases they got spanked in the toosh for it.

 

[Brainiac 8]

Nintendo lost me at the SNES. That was the last great system they put out IMO and I havent looked back since dropping them as home console owner

Interestingly, Nintendo lost me after the SNES also. I never owned a N64 and GC...and ended up buying a Dreamcast (I don't care what you say, it was awesome), PS1, and eventually a PS2.

The Wii is what brought me back to Nintendo. On top of that they promised me a chance to play GC games I never did (Like all of them) and the VC (Which I'm addicted to).

Toward the end of the year I'll have a 360, and having both systems together gives me the best of both worlds. I absolutely love the remote gameplay...when it's implemented properly.

But to be fair, I don't have some of the gaming hangups others do. First off, I'm not much of an online gamer...in fact, I had to cut off my internet this month to save money. Second, I like shiny graphics, but they are not the deciding factor for me when it comes to gaming. Third, the Wii allows my six year old to play games with me, and in many cases know what she is doing.

So yea, the Wii is great for me, and I don't regret the purchse one iota. In fact, the system has more good to great games than most people give it credit for. They just choose not to pay attention to them, since that would get in the way of their unbridled anger.

 

[Timstuff]

If this were the system Nintendo released in 1996, the console scene would probably look very different today. At the very least, Sony's victory in the 32-bit wars would hardly have been a landslide.

 

[Raiden]

Wii is also my first Nintendo console in a long time, after I skipped N64 and GC after SNES. Both PS1 & PS2 were terrific systems and I had originally planned to purchase PS3, but after I read up on Wii I decided that maybe it can entice my family (esp. my wife) to play video games with me. She didn't, but it was a hit with my in-laws and we did have fun sometimes when they came over. However, I began to see the problem of owning a system that strived on multiplayers, since it is still few and far between. That's why I want to get a 360/PS3 right now.

 

[DACrowe]

N64 had some good games, but its library was dwarfed by the PlayStation's. Nitnendo shot themselves in the foot when they stuck with carts instead of embracing CDs. They had no 3rd party support, because no-one wanted to pay Nintendo's expensive licensing fees or the manufacturing costs for the carts. And to make matters worse, companies like Square jumped ship because they wanted to utilize the superior capacity of CD Roms. 2 GB of memory across 3 CDs was a no-brainer in comparison to 80 MB max, expecially when the game on disc costs $1.00 to manufacture while the cartridge costs $10.00 or more.

The N64 was where Nintendo first dropped the ball. The market was already embracing CD-based game systems, but Nintendo insisted that their proprietary format would be a success. This is the same problem that doomed the Gamecube, where Nintendo made a half-assed attempt to integrate DVD technology without actually going all the way. With N64, Nintendo should have used CDs. With Gamecube, they should have used DVD 9s. In both cases they refused to embrace the market trend, and in both cases they got spanked in the toosh for it.

I'm gonna' have to disagree with you there. You make the very clear and factual point that Nintendo's decision to use cartridges cost them dearly. For that they lost Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid, which led most third parties to jump to the Playstation. PS1 outsold N64 worldwide 3 or 4 to 1 (though it was 2 to 1, I believe, in the US).

With that said, beyond that you have to look at the games. I stand by the assessment that the N64 over twice as many memorable games that survive in our thoughts 10 years later than PS1. PS1 had the huge gaming library but they never had a The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, Goldeneye or Super Smash Bros. And then you add on games like Perfect Dark, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, 1080 Snowboarding, Rogue Squadron, Banjo Kazooie, Star Fox 64, Jet Force Gemeni, etc.

N64 was an extremely accomplished system in the games it had. PS1 had some greats, but not many are talked about today beyond Final Fantasy VII, VIII and Resident Evil 1 (which was remade on Gamecube), Resident Evil 2 (ported into a superior version on N64) and Metal Gear Solid (also remade on Gamecube).

PS1 had 10 times as many games, but no one remembers any of them. That is why N64 is the better console in my mind, even if it loss the war when you speak financially.



Now Gamecube on the other hand. Though I love the controller and do not regret my purchase of the machine, THERE is a system where Nintendo just had their ass handed to them and really lived up to the "kiddie" reputation of N64 that never stuck but sadly did to the Cube, even if it did feature RE4 and Eternal Darkness. That was a sad generation for Nintendo, really.

 

[Havok83]

N64 had some good games, but its library was dwarfed by the PlayStation's. Nitnendo shot themselves in the foot when they stuck with carts instead of embracing CDs. They had no 3rd party support, because no-one wanted to pay Nintendo's expensive licensing fees or the manufacturing costs for the carts. And to make matters worse, companies like Square jumped ship because they wanted to utilize the superior capacity of CD Roms. 2 GB of memory across 3 CDs was a no-brainer in comparison to 80 MB max, expecially when the game on disc costs $1.00 to manufacture while the cartridge costs $10.00 or more.

The N64 was where Nintendo first dropped the ball. The market was already embracing CD-based game systems, but Nintendo insisted that their proprietary format would be a success. This is the same problem that doomed the Gamecube, where Nintendo made a half-assed attempt to integrate DVD technology without actually going all the way. With N64, Nintendo should have used CDs. With Gamecube, they should have used DVD 9s. In both cases they refused to embrace the market trend, and in both cases they got spanked in the toosh for it.

These are some of the main reasons why I dumped Nintendo at the N64. The decision to use carts was a big mistake. Everything I saw of Sony's system seemed so much more appealing and it showed in the variety of games released for the PS1. Over the years, it also seemed as if Nintendo wasnt growing with its fanbase and wasnt staying current with the times. Things that have become standard with the other systems, Nintendo has shyed away from like online play and DVD usage as already pointed out.

Another thing that pissed me off with Nintendo was their experimentation with their controllers. The SNES controller was great and they should have evolved that. Instead they kept getting weirder with each system and while soem people have liked it, I surely didnt. The PS took the design of the basic SNES controller and has been improving upon it ever since

PS1 had 10 times as many games, but no one remembers any of them. That is why N64 is the better console in my mind, even if it loss the war when you speak financially

I disagree with this statement. FF7, Resident Evil 1-3, MGS, Tomb Raider 1-3, Castelvania: Symphony of the Night, Twisted Metal 2, Gran Turismo 1 & 2, Tekken 3, Street Fighter Alpha 3, Wipeout, Crash Bandicoot, WWF Smackdown 2. The PS1 had a ton of standout games that people DO remember

 

[Brainiac 8]

I actually agree with Havok here..you are ignoring many fantastic games that people do still play from the PS1. I would also add the Spyro games and Breath of Fire 3 in there...since in the beginning they were fantastic.

The point though is that the N64 (although I didn't own it) had many classic games to it, so I wouldn't necessarily call it a failure, but financially it did poorly.

But the PS1 did have just as many classic games to call its own.

 

[Timstuff]

With that said, beyond that you have to look at the games. I stand by the assessment that the N64 over twice as many memorable games that survive in our thoughts 10 years later than PS1. PS1 had the huge gaming library but they never had a The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, Goldeneye or Super Smash Bros. And then you add on games like Perfect Dark, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, 1080 Snowboarding, Rogue Squadron, Banjo Kazooie, Star Fox 64, Jet Force Gemeni, etc.

I agree that both the N64 and Gamecube produced some of the most memorable games I've played. However, in the case of the N64 (and later the Gamecube, and even today with the Wii), the games that I enjoyed were all made by Nintendo or their second parties. The third party support for N64 was very poor, and it all comes from the fact that Nintendo didn't want to use CDs. Final Fantasy 7-9, Resident Evil 1-3, Tekken 3, Metal Gear Solid, and a bunch of other RPGs and fighting games all gave PSX preferential treatment. N64 sold very poorly in Japan because it had very few RPGs, which is the meat and potatoes of the Japanese game industry.

The one area where N64 had the edge over PSX was first person shooters. Goldeneye, Turok, and Perfect Dark were all killer titles that helped break the ice between console gamers and the FPS genre. However, I can't help but imagine how much more things could have been if N64 had a disc drive. The N64 would have gotten quality ports of PC shooters up the wazoo.

Even though the PSX had a slightly higher polygon count, it could not handle as large environments as the N64, and the N64 had superior texture capacity (not to mention perspective correction, a lack of which made a lot of PSX games hard on the eyes). Unfortunately, the N64 did not get to fully utilize these features in a lot of games because the space on the carts was so limited! Hi-res textures and big worlds take up a lot of data space, and unfortunately the that was a commodity in short supply for the N64.

What aggravated me about the Wii was that Nintendo seems to have not learned from their mistakes. The industry demanded high-octane machines with HD output, and Nintendo more or less recycled the Gamecube's hardware with a slight CPU clock and RAM upgrade. Yeah, they're finally using DVD 9, but the graphical capacity is terrible. Most multiplatform games are more or less scaled-down demakes, many of which don't even have graphics on par with better Gamecube games. Nintendo set the expectations for Wii's graphics so low that many 3rd party devs simply don't care wether or not a game looks like crap. Once again, Nintendo failed to recognize the market trend, and now it's costing them the lion's share of third party support, so they end up with garbage on their system like Chicken Shoot while Xbox 360 and PS3 get Call of Duty 4.

What really gets me upset though, is that they're laughing all the way to the bank because these stupid practices have made Wii the best selling console this gen, even though Nintendo are once again the ones for the vast majority of games worth playing. For third parties however, they take their software to the consoles that allow their creative vision to manifest with the most fidelity, while Nintendo gets their leftover scraps and the games that wouldn't get approved for release by MS and Sony.

 

[DACrowe]

These are some of the main reasons why I dumped Nintendo at the N64. The decision to use carts was a big mistake. Everything I saw of Sony's system seemed so much more appealing and it showed in the variety of games released for the PS1. Over the years, it also seemed as if Nintendo wasnt growing with its fanbase and wasnt staying current with the times. Things that have become standard with the other systems, Nintendo has shyed away from like online play and DVD usage as already pointed out.

Another thing that pissed me off with Nintendo was their experimentation with their controllers. The SNES controller was great and they should have evolved that. Instead they kept getting weirder with each system and while soem people have liked it, I surely didnt. The PS took the design of the basic SNES controller and has been improving upon it ever since

I disagree with this statement. FF7, Resident Evil 1-3, MGS, Tomb Raider 1-3, Castelvania: Symphony of the Night, Twisted Metal 2, Gran Turismo 1 & 2, Tekken 3, Street Fighter Alpha 3, Wipeout, Crash Bandicoot, WWF Smackdown 2. The PS1 had a ton of standout games that people DO remember

The SNES controller is gone. Accept it. First you say Nintendo is too traditional and doesn't grow with the times (which I partially agree with, but since I already have a DVD player and don't like online play, I'm fine with that), but then criticize them for being consistently innovative with their controller?

Look I love my PS3, but the playstation controller has now gone three generations of being the worst of the era. It still emphasizes the D-pad over the analog stick, is uncomfortable to play shooters with, bulky on the shoulders whereas the Xbox 360 (and the Gamecube for that matter) are sleek and seem far more resistant to the idea of new than Nintendo in that regard.

Anyway, if you are going to name port games as well as smaller games, than the N64 can counter: Banjo-Kazooie, Perfect Dark, Turok, Rogue Squadron, Shadows of the Empire, 1080 Snowboarding, Resident Evil 2 (yes it was on N64, in superior form as well because you could turn and move your characters much more freely), Jet Force Gemeni, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Diddy Kong Racing, Mission: Impossible (okay that's a maybe), Harvest Moon, F-Zero X, etc.

The PS1 had some great games, but the ones most people still really talk about today: Metal Gear Solid (which has a Nintendo remake), Resident Evil 1-3 (1-2 having superior ports/remakes, one on the N64), Silent Hill and Final Fantasy VII-VIII. Great games all and I enjoyed playing each and every one of them. But I think games like Goldeneye, Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Super Smash Bros., Perfect Dark, Diddy Kong Racing, etc. just hold up better and are still widely remembered.

Maybe it is preference. Perhaps I am wrong, as the classic lists amount to about the same numbers. However, that does still concur with what I say about PS1's vastly larger gaming library amounting to very little. Because there are only a handful of games that really define each system and people truly remember.

And imo, I'm sure you disagree, the N64's gold list is better.

 

[DACrowe]

I agree that both the N64 and Gamecube produced some of the most memorable games I've played. However, in the case of the N64 (and later the Gamecube, and even today with the Wii), the games that I enjoyed were all made by Nintendo or their second parties. The third party support for N64 was very poor, and it all comes from the fact that Nintendo didn't want to use CDs. Final Fantasy 7-9, Resident Evil 1-3, Tekken 3, Metal Gear Solid, and a bunch of other RPGs and fighting games all gave PSX preferential treatment. N64 sold very poorly in Japan because it had very few RPGs, which is the meat and potatoes of the Japanese game industry.

The one area where N64 had the edge over PSX was first person shooters. Goldeneye, Turok, and Perfect Dark were all killer titles that helped break the ice between console gamers and the FPS genre. However, I can't help but imagine how much more things could have been if N64 had a disc drive. The N64 would have gotten quality ports of PC shooters up the wazoo.

Even though the PSX had a slightly higher polygon count, it could not handle as large environments as the N64, and the N64 had superior texture capacity (not to mention perspective correction, a lack of which made a lot of PSX games hard on the eyes). Unfortunately, the N64 did not get to fully utilize these features in a lot of games because the space on the carts was so limited! Hi-res textures and big worlds take up a lot of data space, and unfortunately the that was a commodity in short supply for the N64.

What aggravated me about the Wii was that Nintendo seems to have not learned from their mistakes. The industry demanded high-octane machines with HD output, and Nintendo more or less recycled the Gamecube's hardware with a slight CPU clock and RAM upgrade. Yeah, they're finally using DVD 9, but the graphical capacity is terrible. Most multiplatform games are more or less scaled-down demakes, many of which don't even have graphics on par with better Gamecube games. Nintendo set the expectations for Wii's graphics so low that many 3rd party devs simply don't care wether or not a game looks like crap. Once again, Nintendo failed to recognize the market trend, and now it's costing them the lion's share of third party support, so they end up with garbage on their system like Chicken Shoot while Xbox 360 and PS3 get Call of Duty 4.

What really gets me upset though, is that they're laughing all the way to the bank because these stupid practices have made Wii the best selling console this gen, even though Nintendo are once again the ones for the vast majority of games worth playing. For third parties however, they take their software to the consoles that allow their creative vision to manifest with the most fidelity, while Nintendo gets their leftover scraps and the games that wouldn't get approved for release by MS and Sony.

I own a PS3 as well as my Wii. I am a smaller buyer and tend to buy maybe one new game every three months and probably about 5-7 games a year and rent a few on top of that, so while the Wii's total library is a bit disheartening, I tend only to buy the cream of the crop on both the Wii and PS3, so it doesn't really affect my enjoyment.

And I partially agree with you. We don't have enough serious gaming and too much consumer-friendly crap and/or 5 bad ports for every good one.

With that said, I think Nintendo is dictating the market. If they had just "followed the market" and focused on HD gaming they would have had their asses handed to them like on Gamecube. They simply cannot compete with the big guns due to their reputation left over from the past. While I do not think it hurt the N64, it did hurt the GC, which is the first truly poorly sold and supplied Nintendo console.

By bucking the trends they now are the market leader. I do not see how becoming market leader is bad, as opposed to third-place catch-up. The Wii, even if you hate it, is dictating the future of gaming. They have created a much larger audience of casual gamers that will be tailored by all three companies in the future and created a new fanbase. They also are revolutionizing the market with motion controls. Yes, they are rudamentary now and you can call them "gimmicky," but the fact is when they work, they are a hit and extremely popular. Expect the Xbox "720" and PS4 to follow suit in somme way.

And on the next system now tentatively called "Wii HD" they can (hopefully) catch up with the technological advantage of competitors, but with a more popular brand now. Wii has saved Nintendo from "fading" to the one who calls the shots. Do not weep for the system.

 

[Havok83]

The SNES controller is gone. Accept it. First you say Nintendo is too traditional and doesn't grow with the times (which I partially agree with, but since I already have a DVD player and don't like online play, I'm fine with that), but then criticize them for being consistently innovative with their controller?

Look I love my PS3, but the playstation controller has now gone three generations of being the worst of the era. It still emphasizes the D-pad over the analog stick, is uncomfortable to play shooters with, bulky on the shoulders whereas the Xbox 360 (and the Gamecube for that matter) are sleek and seem far more resistant to the idea of new than Nintendo in that regard.

Ugh, obviously the SNES controller is gone. I dont get what I have to accept. Its basic design is still felt in the current 360 and PS3 controllers. The PS3 controller is near perfect IMO. Its been one of the best designs for a long time. Its what PS users have been used to and comfortable with for over the past decade and its been working. And its not as if its just stayed stagnant. Sony has continuous changed it since the PS1 first launched. Its added 2 analog sticks, rumble support, pressure sensitive buttons, motion sensing, wireless bluetooth, enhanced the shoulder buttons.

Nintendo's controllers (N64/GC) have been incredibly uncomfortable since it first started experimenting with the N64. Innovative? Maybe but that goes out the window, when it isnt as practical and simple to use as it should be. The N64 and GC were among the worst, Ive used ever on a console. Ive had a GC in my house for the past 6-7 years and have only played a total of 3 games on it bc I simply can not stand that controller. Those games were RE 0, RE Remake and MGS TTS and thats only bc they cant be found anywhere else

Anyway, if you are going to name port games as well as smaller games, than the N64 can counter: Banjo-Kazooie, Perfect Dark, Turok, Rogue Squadron, Shadows of the Empire, 1080 Snowboarding, Resident Evil 2 (yes it was on N64, in superior form as well because you could turn and move your characters much more freely), Jet Force Gemeni, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Diddy Kong Racing, Mission: Impossible (okay that's a maybe), Harvest Moon, F-Zero X, etc.

Thats great and I was never saying the system had no games. I listed those games I did bc you said that the PS1 had no memorable games which clearly isnt the case.

The PS1 had some great games, but the ones most people still really talk about today: Metal Gear Solid (which has a Nintendo remake)

that remake considered by most to be the worst in the series. But then again we are comparing games from the N64/PS1 era not GC/PS2

Resident Evil 1-3 (1-2 having superior ports/remakes, one on the N64),

RE 2 was most identifieable with the PS despite getting later ported to other systems.

Silent Hill and Final Fantasy VII-VIII. Great games all and I enjoyed playing each and every one of them. But I think games like Goldeneye, Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Super Smash Bros., Perfect Dark, Diddy Kong Racing, etc. just hold up better and are still widely remembered.

Again, was never disputing the fact that N64 had memorables games. The PS1 had its fair share of those as well

 

[Timstuff]

Nintendo's controllers (N64/GC) have been incredibly uncomfortable since it first started experimenting with the N64. Innovative? Maybe but that goes out the window, when it isnt as practical and simple to use as it should be. The N64 and GC were among the worst, Ive used ever on a console. Ive had a GC in my house for the past 6-7 years and have only played a total of 3 games on it bc I simply can not stand that controller.

I would have to agree that the GC's controller was a piece of crap. For the longest time I didn't want to admit it (since i had been a life-long Nintendo fan who occasional had infidelity with Sega), but I always knew that the GC's controller felt off. Whenever I was at my brother's house and playing his PS2, the controller always seemed to make more sense. The Gamecube's controller had that stupid LSD inspired button layout and the dumb nipple for a right analog stick, and that made playing first person shooters near impossible because it had no surface area. And that D-pad... UGH, don't get me started! The thing was so tiny and far out of the way that it was almost useless! Playing Soul Calibur 2 on that thing almost broke the game, and Resident Evil, as great as it was suffered because of how tiny the D-pad was.

I wish I had gotten one of those Dualshock 2 to Gamecube adapters-- it would have saved me so much friggin' frustration!

The N64 controller, I can almost forgive. Sega had started a trend with the Sega Genesis of having 6 buttons instead of 4, so Nintendo tried to give people the best of 3 worlds by having 6 buttons that could be used intuitively in sets of 2, 4, or even all six if need be (unfortunately though "Street Fighter 64" never happened BECAUSE NINTENDO DIDN'T USE CDS!). Also, the idea of an analog stick on a gamepad was something brand new, so it's natural that there was some confusion within Nintendo as to where it should be placed. But still, the Playstation controller did a much better job, and so it's no wonder that the 2-pronged, 2-stick Dualshock design has become the archetype for controllers and not the 3-pronged 1-stick N64 controller.

Berate Sony all you want for not inverting the analog stick and D-pad, but honestly I think that this is not the big deal people make it out to be. In shooters, movement is not as important as aiming, and you aim using the right stick, which is in the exact same place on both the PlayStation and Xbox controllers. PC users are accustomed to not even having analog control for movement, so I don't see why people act like having to reach down to use the analog stick makes it harder to play FPS. If that's the case, the buttons should be switched with the right analog stick because that would make aiming easier, too. To me, it's really an almost non-issue that people seem to have blown out of proportion, and it certainly doesn't negate the fact that the Dual Shock is superior for playing 2D games and fighters (although for the latter, I use an arcade stick anyway).

So yeah... THE GAMECUBE CONTROLLER WAS A PIECE OF TRASH!

 

[Havok83]

I would have to agree that the GC's controller was a piece of crap. For the longest time I didn't want to admit it (since i had been a life-long Nintendo fan who occasional had infidelity with Sega), but I always knew that the GC's controller felt off. Whenever I was at my brother's house and playing his PS2, the controller always seemed to make more sense. The Gamecube's controller had that stupid LSD inspired button layout and the dumb nipple for a right analog stick, and that made playing first person shooters near impossible because it had no surface area. And that D-pad... UGH, don't get me started! The thing was so tiny and far out of the way that it was almost useless! Playing Soul Calibur 2 on that thing almost broke the game, and Resident Evil, as great as it was suffered because of how tiny the D-pad was.


So yeah... THE GAMECUBE CONTROLLER WAS A PIECE OF TRASH!

It really became apparent when trying to play MGS TTS with that thing. I cant tell you how frustrating it was

 

[Timstuff]

Oh I believe you... I played through it three times.

That stupid Z-button was a far cry from a real shoulder button, and it was missing a twin on the lefthand side. Why Nintendo thought that the Gamecube should have a button deficiency is beyond me. You had 7 action buttons, and the start button for a total of 8 buttons. On Xbox and PS2, you had 8 pressure sensetive action buttons (something GC did not have), start and select buttons, plus the ability to press in the josticks for two additional button presses. That meant you had a total of 12 buttons on PS2 and Xbox, which meant that the GC's controller was short by 4-- this really proved to be an annoyance when playing multiplatform games, because often times if a button was missing the developer would simply map it to the D-pad instead. Nintendo's refusal to embrace the industry standard ended up hurting them, as was the case with many aspects of the GC.

Also, I remember reading in a magazine some years ago that Nintendo was the only hardware maker who never sent out development kits for the broadband adapter. When Sega released Phantasy Star Online on the system, they pretty much had to create all of their online compatibility from scratch since Nintendo did not want to help. It actually kind of amazes me that Gamecube even had one online game, or that Nintendo even bothered releasing modems for the system. And the modem peripherals for GC are nothing but fancy paper weights now that support for PSO, PSO episode III, and "Homeland" (which no-one even played) have been canceled.

I don't think I ever felt more cheated out of $40 than when Nintendo sold me a broadband adapter that they NEVER had any intention of making software for. It was like ROB the Robot, but at least Nintendo made two games for ROB, and he looked cool sitting on a shelf despite being useless as a peripheral. When Nintendo proposed that that Gameboy connectivity was a valid alternative to online gaming because "It's like a tiny internet between the Gamecube and Gameboy," that was the last straw that made me buy a PS2.

When I found out the Wii was essentially an overclocked Gamecube with a new peripheral, that was the last straw that got me to break down and buy a PS3 instead, but the unspoken feud between me and Nintendo began a LONG time before then, starting with their Gamecube blunders.