| milkyjoe said: Assuming there's any chance of this being accurate, I'm struggling to think of a realistic use for this kind of technology within current gaming conventions, but that'd be why I'm posting here and not employed by Nintendo. By that I mean, motion control was easy to understand within what we already knew. You just swing your arm like you're playing tennis or whatever rather than using analog sticks or buttons. This is something else. I've never thought 'I'd quite like to see how this feels' when walking through Hyrule Field or whatever, and I don't see why something like that would add to the experience. In saying that, I'd be completely open minded to giving it a try if it does indeed turn out to be true. |
I think peoples main problem is that they try and look at one thing and think "how does that work for said game"
each game is different and thus a touch screen that can be anything helps that. For games like puzzles as someone said or nintendogs ect the feel would be neat. For other games like FPS and what not, the feel may be nothing more than just let you FEEL where each button is on the controller and not be blindly pressing a flat screen.
I mean imagine a fps developer has a screen that he can put 1, or 50 buttons on it if he wants. he can arrange them wherever he wants. but the problem with touch screens are that its one flat surface and all feels teh same. thus your finger could easily slide from pushing the shoot button to toss grenade button, ect. BUT what does this feel do, it makes the button have a texture and around the button smooth, or whatever the case. THus you will be able to stay on the button better. It could give the buttton a CLICKY feel to it as well so you have tha feeling of pushing a button, ect.
while i'm not sure if i am behind this yet, new controllers are always well new and you could like it or hate it. so far i don't think there has been a nintendo controller i have disliked, so i'm hopeful. hell gamecube was my favorite of the 3 controllers that gen too.
