SplitFish's new glideFX controller PS3 compatible?
by Christopher Grant 
{ Apr 4th 2006 at 6:57PM }
Looks like someone at SplitFish realized the gold plastic look wasn't earning them any followers, so they went back to the ol' drawing board and came up with the new glideFX controller. Their website describes the glideFX as "the world's first B-type Controller. glideFX uses a 'Trackball' to manage movement that is normally controlled by the right analog stick. Separate left right controls and adjustable Sensitivity settings." I'm not really sure what any of that actually means.
Obviously someone at SplitFish needs a lesson on proper capitalization. Grammar inconsistencies aside, the site reports the glideFX controller is "for the PlayStation 2" while the email we received said it was the "new PS2/3 SplitFish controller" that "is to be shown at E3 this year." Probably means this same controller will be updated to be PS3 compatible, with wireless functionality and whatever else that entails ... though, we'll be content just seeing the stock PlayStation 3 controller.
[Thanks, Ken]
[UPDATE: To inform any (further) comparisons between the SplitFish controller and the Revomote, please read - Splitfish: we're not copying the Revolution controller.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Freddy Q @ Apr 4th 2006 7:00PM
Wow that was quick...copying nintendo already... Good luck with that...
Iced_Eagle @ Apr 4th 2006 7:01PM
Looks like two Nintendo Revolution Nun-Chucks put together :)
The1 @ Apr 4th 2006 7:02PM
Seems like someone is biting Nintendo's ideas.
toygen @ Apr 4th 2006 7:08PM
Looks better than the eariler version but still a non standard imitator.
theburn_16 @ Apr 4th 2006 7:10PM
see, if some of you knew what you were talkin about you would know that this was already well into development before the revolution controller was announced. the original one was shown off way back last year at one of the tech shows
Jordan @ Apr 4th 2006 7:16PM
Is it me, or is this saying of "elevate your gameplay" rather conflicting??? A track ball, and a HORRIBLE button layout tells me that they put all uhh, 2 minutes into thinking this stupid thing up!!! The least they could do was copy Nintendo w/ a somewhat functional controller!! I mean, I would probably hit every other button besides the one I need because they're all freakin flush w/ one another and right next to each other. Pitiful...
AnimalTaglits @ Apr 4th 2006 7:17PM
Someone copied someone with this design...
oz @ Apr 4th 2006 7:42PM
You can bet your morning donut that Krazy Ken has something close to that as the regular controller for the PS3 [think I'll hug my 360 a little longer]
lo0gie @ Apr 4th 2006 7:44PM
Sony Rev 360
striderhayasa @ Apr 4th 2006 7:44PM
Whether the joystick is a Nintendo rip or not, all that matters is if it actually works.
jay @ Apr 4th 2006 7:57PM
Well ok, striderhayasa, I'm going to make a MGS clone game, and after that a GTA game WITHOUT BUGS! Is that cool so long as they actually work?
Hoffy @ Apr 4th 2006 8:29PM
Wait guys, I have a great idea! What if we took the PS2 controller, ripped it in half... and GET THIS... used a trackball instead of a right analog stick!
Awesome you say?? It gets better!
SCREW the tried-and-true PlayStation button layout. That crap is for pussies. Real gamers use vertically aligned buttons that are stacked flush with each other.
We could call it, "The Splitfish." What does it mean? Well... it's a controller split in two. Fish.
Best. Controller. Ever.
DCSimian @ Apr 4th 2006 8:38PM
Hey, compared to the last iteration we saw...I'd say this is a major improvement. At least it looks half-way decent. Don't know about that trackball though...
bandit @ Apr 4th 2006 8:42PM
many of you dont realize that the original was built LONG before the rev one was even annouced. If anyone, "bit" "copied" or "chewed" off anyone else it was nintendo copying off the the original splitfish creators. The only reason they are remaking it is because you fanboys started praising nintendo for "innovation" so the original company basically said screw that if nintendo can make money off it so can we. I guess the idea only works if there is a nintendo sign stamped on it. So much for innovation...
Imadogg99 @ Apr 4th 2006 8:44PM
Hahaha Hoffy's post was one of the best I've ever seen in my life.
"We could call it, 'The Splitfish.' What does it mean? Well... it's a controller split in two. Fish."
Lmao priceless...
But seriously though the button layouts might look gay, and probably wouldn't be best for most games, I guess they could work well for some genres of games. I just can't think of any at the moment.
On a side note, I got my 360 on Sunday. To Oblivion, and beyond!!!!!!!!!!!
Sp1k3 @ Apr 4th 2006 8:53PM
The fact that this is so close to certain other controllers (which have been in development for four and a half years) cannot be conincidence. Oh well, mimicry is the highest form of flattery.
MetaHuman @ Apr 4th 2006 9:04PM
@ BANDIT
Nintendo was working on it since the beginning of GameCube. Remember that Kirby Tilt-n-tumble game at Spaceworld that had Kirby bouncing off the screen onto the GBA with a tilt sensor? That was one of the main goals of the GBA-GCN connectivity but they later realized it was too limited. It eventually evolved into what DS is and grew from GC to Revo.
It might only work on a system with the Nintendo name stamped on it because they are the ones focusing Revo's hardware to keep up with the controller. Since "SplitFish" is 3rd-Party PS3 might not be able keep up with it because it wasn't programmed to. Hell Sony's own EyeToy SHOULD be more reliable than this.
I guess you guys can use the Mr. Sparkle defense and say that it's not Homer Simpson but rather a fish combined with a light bulb. LOL
N-fanboyz,KILLER, @ Apr 4th 2006 9:18PM
revomote is so ugly and looks so freaking weird, i will just stick with my pad and keyb-mouse for fps ,thank you.
no need for crap innovation here, noone cares.
nintendo power glove - fails
nintendo virtual boy - fails
nintendo revomote - fails.
nuff said.
Peretz @ Apr 4th 2006 9:18PM
sucky sucky.
Enigma @ Apr 4th 2006 9:24PM
#15
Typical Nintendo fanboys always pulling things out of thin air, espoecually with "when something was supposedly being worked on" without concrete proof.
Pretty soon it is going to be Nintendo was around when Jesus was, and was developing their first arcade machine back then.
Give it up. The idea Nintendo had, others have had as well. They are just riding the rabid fanboys to try and make it successful.
Oh yeah something called Virtual Reality in the Lawnmower Man days had the same effect. But Nintendo probably invented that right? Just like they invented water, the wheel, and fire.
Dont forget they invented life.
:rolleyes:
Ombre @ Apr 4th 2006 9:35PM
16: Uh, didn't Mattel make the Power Glove, as a 3rd party accessory for the NES?
It's only the same in design - not functionality - to the Revmote (with nunchaku analog attachment).
mercatfat @ Apr 4th 2006 9:45PM
this thread has the most FUD i've seen outside of Digg in weeks.
@16-
Nintendo didn't invent the power glove, christ.
@ the subject
few but the ignorant would ever claim that Nintendo invented virtual reality motion control. their "innovation" is in the way that they'll be doing it, much like how they didn't invent the touch screen game, they simply came as close to perfecting it as anyone else has.
Enigma @ Apr 4th 2006 9:49PM
#20
Which is exactly why fanboys shouldnt shout stupid shit saying that everyone and their mother is stealing NINTENDO's Ideas, whenever something comes out.
Everything in the gaming industry is piggy backed.
Get over yourselves people.
svengok @ Apr 4th 2006 9:49PM
N-Fanboyz;Killer,
"nintendo power glove - fails
nintendo virtual boy - fails
nintendo revomote - fails"
Well, for starters, the power glove wasn't even Nintendo's (but Mattels), the Virtual Boy had people worried for no reason (go to page 1 of a recent game's manual. If you would've followed the reccomendations nothing would happen on a vb.), and the Revmote isn't out yet!
And even if they are all failures like you say, here's another list for you.
Nintendo Arcade Games = Didn't Fail
NES = Didn't Fail
Game And Watch = Didn't Fail
Game Boy = Didn't Fail
SNES = Didn't Fail
Game Boy Colour = Didn't Fail
N64 = Didn't Fail
GBA = Didn't Fail
DS = Didn't Fail
Gamecube = Didn't Fail
Most 1st Party Games, If Not All = Didn't Fail
Before you go all "n64 and cube are failures", not being first doesn't mean failure.
-------------
Now, to the splitfish. It looks interesting, but I like the revmote better. I mean, this doesn't have the gyroscopes or sensors or anything the revmote has, so they aren't even in the same competition!
I'll get one of these likely when prices go down.
- Svengok
MetaHuman @ Apr 4th 2006 9:52PM
@ ENIGMA
I didn't say Nintendo "invented everything". I said they made it so that it would work better with the system and therefore better for the games. They designed OPTIMAL hardware to deal with the controller.
The Kirby Tech demo set-up is included with one of their patents. It was covered during the last Spaceworld. Iwata at GDC said they were experimenting on GC with it but couldn't get it to work as they wanted. IGN's infamous "Revo specs revealed" report offers that same conclusion as well. I, a self-admitting fanboy, don't think I'm pulling this out of anyone's ass.
If people want to argue why graphics are better I don't see why people can't debate that a system was built to do one thing better than a peripheral for another. It could be possible to say that the SplitFish won't have as big a reach as Revo becuase it likely won't come out with every system.
If you think Revo was around when Jesus was, you need to read Penny-Arcade's comic about 1-Upsmanship. It's simply not true. :)
JPRacer @ Apr 4th 2006 9:56PM
This is nothing like the Nintendo desgin. There's no motion tracking with this controller. The big thing with the Nintendo controller is motion tracking. Just because the two controllers look similar doesn't mean they function the same.
Enigma @ Apr 4th 2006 10:18PM
#23
I never said you did. I was generalizing as to what i read everytime a company has something simular to another.
I always see a, "baaah omgozmgom they ripped it fromz Nintendoez"
When the idustry always piggy backs itself much like the car industry, TV industry, computer industry, etc.
I was being sarcastic as far as Nintendo being around since Jesus, since everytime someone makes a point that a company had it first, someone says Nintendo was inventing it in their uncles basement before they were born ona rainy summer night in 1964.
You get the point.
MrMastodonFarm @ Apr 4th 2006 10:25PM
Actually PlayStation is correct. I remember that from the patents. Look at them on the PSP or PS2. I'm pretty sure that it is officially PlayStation. Thanks for the link too. I was sick of the who stole what arguement.
Although, to add in, even if Nintendo started the Revmote earlier, we don't know when the whole split in two, one in each hand bit started----It is possible for people to have similar ideas ;)
Jed Merrill @ Apr 4th 2006 10:33PM
I've seen Nintendo's patent that limits others from connecting two halves of a controller this way.
IMO, Sony is paying Split Fish to take their risks for them. When Nintendo sues them, watch Sony step in and pay the bill.
bluebren @ Apr 4th 2006 10:38PM
*puzzles over*
Okay, I originally assumed you were supposed to hop your right thumb over from the trackball to the buttons and back, and that made no sense. Actually, less. But if you wrap your hand around the back and have one button per finger.... In fact, trying out the positioning, it looks like that's the idea; the fingertips fall at exactly that angle. That is, as long as you have your grip at the top part instead of the handle, and don't mind rolling the trackball with the base of the thumb instead of the thumb itself.
Someone, please, explain to me how this might ever have been deemed ergonomically viable. And why it has 3 redundant logos on the same image, for Pete's SAKE.
Fuzz @ Apr 4th 2006 10:50PM
bluebren . . .ya, that might be possible . .if you either ignore the r1,r2 buttons, or have 6 fingers.
Dont worry, I don't think anyone else gets it either. That's why this deteriorated into a wierd Nintendo bashing/supprting thread. People couldn't figure out what they hell was going on, so they ignored it and went into ground they *think* they know.
Enigma @ Apr 4th 2006 11:02PM
Fuzz,
This is Joystiq, anything that can be pulled out as copying Nintendo will be in these threads. Regardless if one understands it or not.
It is the nature of the geek!
big daddy @ Apr 4th 2006 11:05PM
U haters need to quit talking smack...ur probably a bunch of 12yr olds in ur parents bedroom using thier computers.....this is a bit of topic but we need to stop hating the ps3 boomerang controller i mean this thing could have been the most comfertobale controller ever.......the ps3 was in devellopment for quite some time and dont u think they had a lot of controller ideas to choose from....think about it jakasses
Keeko_ca @ Apr 5th 2006 12:15AM
Blah, blah, blah..."Praise Nintendo," "piss on Nintendo," you all sound like fanboys to me. Listen, it's quite obvious the thing looks like the Revolution controller concept. It's pretty bad when the most intelligent thing posted here is, "SCREW the tried-and-true PlayStation button layout. That crap is for pussies." LOL! Good one BTW! I got a good laugh out of that!
These guys deserve to be slammed....but not due to the Revmote resemblance...seriously...what the fuck were they smoking?? WHY on EARTH would you want a PS2 controller that's split in two? Remove one stick and replace it with a TRACKBALL? HAHAHHAAH! Why oh why would they place the buttons on there vertically? OMFG man.
Nmaster @ Apr 5th 2006 12:28AM
I think these Splitfish people are completely missing the point, and this is why it's not gonna work:
With the Revolution, the games are designed around the controller.
With the PS3, the controller will have to be designed around the games (which, basically, is impossible).
In other words, developers are not going to have that thing in mind when they're designing their game's control scheme, and thus, it's just not going to be effective like the Revolution will...
First-party controllers are the only ones developers really take into consideration, so unless Sony wants to adopt this (it'd be better than that boomerang), there's no way this will catch on. It's much too hard for a controller to adapt to the games, and works much smoother if the games adapt to the controller...
troc 59 @ Apr 5th 2006 1:09AM
Hahahahaha! The PC gamers and the Micro$oft honkies must be rolling in the aisles laughing their shitters off! Nintendo and Sony beating each other over the head like a couple of bag ladys in a turf war! I certainly hope Sony keeps making games for the PS2 and N for the Cube because I think that's are far as I'm going with their crap. It just makes my 360 look s-o-o-o much better...GRAW...OBLIVION....HALO 3...GEARS OF WAR.................
MetaHuman @ Apr 5th 2006 1:16AM
@ KEEKO_CA
Because it does something that is similar to Revo: use its laser-guidance to aim at the TV screen. The first model was clearly styled after a gun, so yeah, some of the functionality had to do with its final form.
Anyways, anyone know how that normal PS2 controller with the trackball turned out?
stoik @ Apr 5th 2006 2:43AM
Everyone can stop the bashing. Nintendo fanboys have no need to worry, this will flop during beta testing.
The only one here who knows what they're talking about is #29. Everyone with a basic knowledge of physics (anyone who can catch a ball) should know when you try to use those buttons, the far position past your fingers would only pivot the thing. You need equal pressure on the opposite site, like moving your fingers, but console controllers are not supposed to have that. The right side is a flop (I see nothing wrong with the trackball). These people should have realised this after the original release of the xbox controller; or the public outcry!
The left side isn't as bad. The buttons are fine but the joystick is too far. You can pull it inward easily but it would be harder to push in the opposite direction (top-right). A joystick is supposed to be neutral in all directions and this unbalance is also a failure.
The success of this atrocity would be a miracle.
Jamesology @ Apr 5th 2006 3:10AM
This controller is stupid... the revolution controller is neat but STUPID!!! It makes gaming more complicated with another piece dangling when you try to reach for a drink. I wish they made it one piece.
It's funny how ppl are trying to make up things that Sony is paying this company or some crap like that to fullfill their Nintendo fanboyism need to bash Sony. LMAO Nintendo fanboys actually all fanboys are such girls.
Hey fanboys do you guys need a new box of Maxipads?
bandit @ Apr 5th 2006 3:55AM
Ok now i have to laugh, there are ters being tossed around such as "programmed" for and "designed" for the REALITY is the Revmote will work with select gamecube games because the concept can even be implemented on CURRENT AND PAST gen hardware. To say its not as good is idiotic as nintendo already stated you can use the standard controller instead, MEANING no games will be REVMOTE ONLY, meaning the exact same games can be done on another console with the exact same peripherial in the EXACT SAME way the gamecube will receive support for the revmote. By sending patch down the network for compatibility!!!! No Duh guys. As for the claim that the revmote has been in development for 4 years, thats an utter lie. The fact that splitfish created a company, designed the hardware AND went public over a year ago with their design should be a good indicator that if anyone developed the concept first, its sure as hell wasnt nintendo. basically the ONLY reason this works "better" on the nintendo REV, is because it has the "Nintendo" brand stamped on the front of it.
Just to dispell and reiterate a number of points
1) ALL games for the rev MUST be playable via the traditional controller, per nintendo, THUS NO GAMES WILL BE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED AROUND THE REMOTE and thus CAN BE EASILY PORTED TO OTHER SYSTEMS WITH A SIMILAR PERIPHERIAL!!!!
2) Motion detection is essentially the key here. If this add-on is compatible with the gamecube, per nintendo again. Give me one good damn reason (besides copyright infrigement which ninty is could also be indanger of) why a very similar perpherial cannot be made for the other two systems to play the exact same games (besides first party of course)
MetaHuman @ Apr 5th 2006 4:53AM
1) If the hardware is designed to handle the controller better it's less hassle for the developers to get used to it (kinda like XNA whereas XNA is for stuff like physics the Revo's hardware would be optimized for keeping up with the controller).
Keeping up with human motion EFFICIENTLY isn't something that a patch can fix. Twilight Princess using the Revmote obviously won't be Revo at its full power, but more likely a preview.
Why and WHO says that all games MUST be playable with a traditional controller? Wouldn't that be counter-active to the encouragement to taking chances with new ideas?
They are NOT entirely comparable, only for the motion-tracking feature.
2) No one's debating patents. They are using different technology and different designs and people are comparing it based on that Revo can aim at the TV based on sensors against the SplitFish which uses laser guidance.
Not to mention there are other issues such as Online usefulness or shared-screen multiplayer where one method of MOTION-TRACKING ALONE (the only reason for comparison) may prove superior to the other. With SplitFish you might have to aim at the screen whereas with a Revmote your hand could rest on your lap and just tilt the thing.
How is Nintendo in trouble of patent infringement? That's what I don't understand.
It's WELL documented that Nintendo has been experimenting with motion-tracking technology in recent years. They have their own patents pertaining to their own research.
As for a comparable device on a competitor system, Sony is working hard on EYETOY for PS3. They KNOW they have to build it according to their system, which is why I said that EYETOY for PS3 COULD be more reliable than this peripheral. Ken Kutaragi, with as much nonsense he talks, makes a lot of sense from time to time, talking about wanting his system 4D, THAT'S WHAT he was talking about.
He wants the machine to keep up with things such as EyeToy for PS3 (according to Kutaragi's words, "real time"), but with the graphics PS3 seem to be promising, the machine's going to be costly. Nintendo wants their machine to be efficient and affordable, which is why they are basing the Revo hardware around the controller. It's a more comprehensive consideration than a 3rd-Party peripheral.
I REALLY WANT PS3'S EYETOY TO DO WELL. As much as I hate to admit it they could have something big with EyeToy rather than an imitation(or not) Revmote. Whether or not they will actually follow through with games that take advantage of its capabilities AND PS3's power will determine its success, just as the Revmote can and will likely do for Revo, with their large library of franchises old and new.
Both Sony and Nintendo know that they have to design hardware based on new techniques on what they want to do with it; THIS controller simply isn't the answer.
Don Jose @ Apr 5th 2006 5:03AM
Too bad they're wasting that thing on Sony. It looks like more fun than the Revmote.
the_game_master @ Apr 5th 2006 7:18AM
This PS2/PS3 generic brand controller will fail and here's why. First off regardless who came up with the idea Gameware or Nintendo, at least Nintendo is building their console and all their games around their controller. This 3rd party brand controller for the PS3 won't have any native game support, and most the PS2 and future PS3 games will be designed in favor of the official PlayStation controller. Leaving this generic brand as a wannabe Revolution controller. This trend has been tried before, there were tons of PlayStation and SuperNES controller clones made for competiting consoles in the past. No one buys them , why, because their generics.
striderhayasa @ Apr 5th 2006 7:21AM
@Jay #10....obviously yeah. Look at the market and see how many GTA clones, MGS Clones, Mario clones etc are around. Personally I think it stinks but this is the industry we play in.
I'll give you a better example. The dog training simulator and brain game rip offs for the PSP. Why? Because sony is getting embarrassed in Japan and they need a killer app.
Sam @ Apr 5th 2006 7:27AM
The thing is, they revealed the splitfish after the revolution remote was revealed. Even if they had thought of it first, would they have shown it if either nintendo didn't show there's or had shown it but nobody liked it? I don't think the split fish would have been shown if the rev remote had failed...
bandit @ Apr 5th 2006 8:20AM
Ok metahuman I will draw a few points as you seem to be the BIGGEST nintendo fanboy to ever grace the planet.
"Keeping up with human motion EFFICIENTLY isn't something that a patch can fix. Twilight Princess using the Revmote obviously won't be Revo at its full power, but more likely a preview."
HOW THE F*%$ do you use a motion tracking remote at "half power"?!?!? This simple sounds like YOU HOPE it cannot be used at "full power" or whatever the heck you are trying to imply because right now that one of the only thing the revolution console CAN do that the others cannot. Honestly that statement doesnt even have a leg to stand on. If the Revolution remote works on the gamecube (I dont see how the hell it could possbily "half-work" ) then it will work with ANY console or PC. Get over it. geez.
As for the games being played with standard controllers, can i get a show of hands of everyone who remembers a representative of nintendo announcing that the revolution games will be playable with a standard controller. Im sure the Joystiq crew can dig up and provide that information. As a nintendo fanboy I expect you to know this information.
From you posts I can tell you have ZERO technical knowledge. The only REAL barrier to add on equipment, and the reason why console are not modular, like the 32x and sega CD is BANDWIDTH. If ports could be made that would support the future standard in 5 years then you would see more modular consoles as it stands thats why we get updates in the form of new hardware for consoles. Proof that the revolution hardware is NOT bandwidth intensive is its full compatibility with gamecube development kits which have the EXACT same port bandwidth as RETAIL gamecube kits. This means that however it is implemented. IT IS AN ADD-ON that can be added to an external port of and exisitng console and have zero difficulty in getting the same "performance" *snicker* out of the controller. The fact that you are even trying to convince me that the controller work at different "power" levels is a joke unto itself.
As for the rest, its basically off tangent and wont get a reply. The main point here is that nothing that nintendo is doing cannot be done on the other consoles. PERIOD. You can draw these conclusions from NINTENDO OWN IMPLEMENTATION of the revoultion remote.
Zsavior @ Apr 5th 2006 9:23AM
Ummm...What the hell is wrong with you people. Aruging over who stole from whom. Maybe after we settled that debate we can go into the oh so in-depth, which came first chicken verse egg arguement. It doesn't matter that they may have stolen the revolutions idea because what is the compatibility of that controller with the PS3 system?
Sony and MS have already stated they don't see the revolution as the way the gaming world is turning. Here is the sceneario that PS3 and Xbox 360 have, this sort of perphireal comes out, Nintendo revolution spawns very popular game that storms the market. The question will be this: Does PS3 and xbox rely of Splitfish type periphireals to try and get that game on their system, or do they ignore the game and swear by their idea power is better?
See that is where the trouble lies, not in who creates what remote but who utilizes which controller best, if the PS3 and xbox 360 copies the Revolutions games to use a controller like the splitfish to play them they will be setting bad pressidents. The first will be that big budget graphics systems aren't needed and thus aren't worth their price because you can get same or superior game play on a cheaper machine. Second with the port of a Revolution title that utilizes the Revolution style remote, they are openly stating nintendo is setting the bar for gaming innovention, whether nintendo created the idea for the controller or not they are the first major console company to focus completely on that style rather than the only joypad controller set up. That is what should be scaring Sony fanboys, the fact that 3rd party perphireal companies are already gearing up to steal revolution controller based games as if PS3 needs them.
And by the way since No system has come out with the nunchucks style controller it is safe to say the games are revolution based. Ask yourself why would sony ask 3rd party or in house developers to create games you couldn't play on their system because you didn't have the proper controller made for those games. A controller like the one splitfish has made obviously anticipates sony seeing a must have game on the revolution and wants to capitlize on it. Kind of like RE4, Viewtiful Joe, and Killer 7. Only this time it will be so blantant that everybody will stand up and look, so I don't give a damn that they made a bad mock up for the revo controller or not, I can see its intended purpose. The day a Revolution game comes out on a PS3 system to use a controller like that, man I don't even want to think about explosion that will happen on blogs like this.
MetaHuman @ Apr 5th 2006 9:55AM
@ Bandit
I'd rather be a fanboy and try to reason than be a steretyped fanboy and try to use my amazing name-calling wit to put others' opinions under mine. Things I talk about are high possibilities, not absolute certainty.
Twilight Princess will only work at reduced levels minus the actual Revo content because it's also playable as a 'traditional' game on GC. Because TP's for GC, it's not going to push Revo as hard, graphics and processing-wise. Logically, a TRUE Revo chapter of Zelda will be more complete than Twilight Princess. The controller will be fine, as Nintendo designs their games around their controllers as well, and because it's within the hardware, its tracking quality can remain constant no matter what game is in(if tracking is needed at all).
It was already explained by Iwata himself and an article by IGN's Matt Cassamassina that the Revo controller WOULD NOT WORK as well as they hoped on GC. You can get it to work on any system but will the performance be the same? Are load times for identical games on different consoles equal? NO.
Any reason why Capcom developed RE4 for PS2 from scratch rather than a direct port? Little decisions like these can always get a little more polish than just a direct adaptation.
"The only REAL barrier to add on equipment, and the reason why console are not modular"
That's what I called HARDWARE DESIGN. For Revo it would be its sensor bars. For PS3 it could be an EyeToy, which would sense the LED wand if they wanted to go through with it.
"The fact that you are even trying to convince me that the controller work at different "power" levels is a joke unto itself"
NOT DIFFERENT POWER LEVELS, DIFFERENT PROGRAMMING. PROGRAMMING. READ MY POST AGAIN. Waving a controller is not the same as pushing buttons. Revo's sensors have to detect a lot more than a light on the screen. To minimize the developer hassle the hardware can take care of it rather than manual programming on the games. More dynamic interaction versus scripted, perhaps.
"As for the games being played with standard controllers, can i get a show of hands of everyone who remembers a representative of nintendo announcing that the revolution games will be playable with a standard controller. Im sure the Joystiq crew can dig up and provide that information. As a nintendo fanboy I expect you to know this information."
Maybe you meant that SOME Revolution games will be playable with a 'Traditional shell', which is modeled after the Wavebird. Iwata and Miyamoto have been quoted on the same thing. There are many other schemes available as well. Among having a unique attachment, no attachment at all, or a Revmote in each hand, Revo games have a large variety of options as far as the control scheme goes. Yet nowhere have I heard that ALL Revo games, as you stated, must work on a 'traditional' controller.
Sony's got something with MORE POTENTIAL than this controller. It's called EyeToy. They are building PS3 to run it as smoothly and as possible.
Look at what it's running.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=58hfb9ZxzK8&search=ps3%20eyetoy
It's being touted as a "virtual mirror" but there is a noticeable delay. ***That is what Nintendo's trying to avoid with the Revmote, and no doubt Sony's working on that as well.*** What could possibly cause the delay, perhaps there's too much graphical information to render to possibly keep up with the gameplay information? It's simply a matter of design/programming balance and how much the company wants to sell it for.
Gonzo @ Apr 5th 2006 2:17PM
Okay the first thing I thought was that they're trying to make a revolution rip off.
The rollerball is a nice touch though. It would be cool to use it with katamari games but I'm more excited about the prospects for FPSs. Until now, I've only been able to play (well) a FPS on the computer.
Concerned Citizen @ Apr 12th 2006 7:24PM
Even the two button layout at the back of the nun-chuck is the as the revo controller, just because they started workink on a "controller" before the revo being shown, doesnt mean that their project havent changed based on nintendo ideas.