| RolStoppable said: Most of the time the second stick is used for camera controls (when it is used at all) and the Gamecube's C-stick is a simple evolution of the Nintendo 64's C buttons which came into existence primarily for controlling a camera. That's probably why Nintendo decided to call a whole four buttons C, because the word camera also starts with a C. Luigi's Mansion was basically the "tech demo" to show off what the Gamecube controller can be used for. Metroid Prime 1 and 2 did not use the C-stick as a second analog, but rather as a second d-pad to select one out of four different beams. Zelda uses the C-stick for camera controls and the pointer of the Wiimote only does the job of the regular analog stick (looking around in first person perspective). There's hardly any Nintendo game where you can say that it requires a second analog stick, because those functions can be taken care of by other means. In the DS's and 3DS's case that would be the touch screen. Now regarding your points about the 3DS's failure. 1) Stereoscopic 3D "splits" the screen in two parts (one for each eye) and as a result the backlight is perceived much weaker than normal. To make up for this the brightness of the screen needed to be drastically increased which in turn reduced the battery life greatly. Therefore, 3D is the reason for the short battery life. 2) What they lacked foresight in was what the market wanted. Stereoscopic 3D doesn't add much, if anything, to a video game. As such, it's perceived value is close to zero. People don't like to pay for value of that level. Also, does the world really want to play expansive 3D games on a handheld or could we learn from the PSP that the market for such a platform is limited? What was Nintendo's reaction? They made a spiritual successor to the PSP instead of the DS. That's the root of all problems. A second circle pad won't make the 3DS more similar to the DS, but quite the opposite. Nintendo doesn't need third parties. Never have and never will. All their successful systems were kicked off by first party software and only then did third parties show up. The part in Nintendo's business model that is not sustainable is abandoning their own platforms. Nowadays, when every third party game goes multiplatform, what does this mean for Nintendo? Will third party software sell their system? Absolutely not. What is the best it could do then? Preventing existing owners of their systems to consider another platform. That's it. This means that Nintendo alone is responsible for selling their hardware in the first place. This is business as usual. What's left to keep an eye on is to maintain that customer base. One way to do this would be plenty of third party software, the other option would be Nintendo doing it themselves. Now in theory, who would be more reliable to do this job? It should be Nintendo. Just look at it as a gamer. Suppose you bought a Nintendo system. Why? Well, in the majority of cases it would be because of one or several Nintendo games. When is the point coming where you consider buying another platform? When there's nothing to play on your Nintendo system. Purchasing hardware sucks, because it costs a lot. So the first thing you usually do is looking for more games on platforms you already do own. A gamer doesn't necessarily need the absolute best game in any given genre, a sufficient substitute is usually good enough. That's how Sony's business model works and it can work, because they can rely on third parties. It's obvious that Nintendo would like to say the same thing about themselves with the way they try to reach out to third parties, but it's not going to work simply for the reason that third parties will always pick the non-Nintendo option if there is one. To get back to the 3DS, Nintendo shouldn't have made a 3D system in the first place. A generational leap in horsepower and relying on old strengths would have sealed the deal. Launch the system at or below $200 with an actual sequel to New Super Mario Bros. and they would have been fine. The circle pad should have gone below the d-pad to make it clear that 2D games will still be the primary type of gameplay. Also, it's much easier to operate a circle pad in such an awkward position than a d-pad. And with the DS successor selling like hot cakes out of the gate, what option would third parties have had other than supporting the damn thing? |
RE: 2nd stick
I can agree with you that Nintendo doesn't need a 2nd stick for their games. But that has more to do with what games they focus on. They don't do FPS and other types really.. Metroid Prime is about the closest and Prime simply utilized an autolock feature (kind dumbing it down really) on GC.
However, Wii has a definte 2nd stick in the IR pointer and that was amazing when used correctly in games like Metroid Prime 3, Conduit, and later CoD's. Fact is for certain genres (those that are VERY popular in the mass and core market right now in most of world) a 2nd stick or similar function is essentially required for the full effect.
With this in mind having one on the 3DS should have been considered mandatory to me.
RE: battery life
While you are absolutely right on why the life is down so much, your solution is only one. When they considered making 3D a major selling point, they should have made the necessary changes to allow longer battery. Otherwise, don't add the feature. I personally think 3D is nice option, so my vote was for bigger battery.
RE: Nintendo philosophy and 3rd party
This one is definitely more complicated. On one hand you are right that Nintendo must put out big name titles early to gain buyers regardless of what 3rd parties are doing. You are also right that they must focus on bringing their better games in a more constant pattern to keep its customers happy.
However, I think you're wrong that they shouldn't care about getting 3rd party at all. I do think the quality 3rd party titles should be pushed hard to bring over. I am a gamer... not just a Nintendo gamer. While my favorite IPs are made by Nintendo... I still want to play the many other games created at other studios. I don't want to have to purchase another $300 system just to play these solely because Nintendo's platform is too different for the company to port the game to.
3rd parties are companies and will want to make money if they can. Wii was simply too under powered to gain these titles and they rightfully felt they could make as much or money moeny focusing on PC/PS360... and they did. Then if they wanted to have low end ports it went to other bigger more common platforms like mobile.
I don't mind having a downgraded version... but I do mind not having the option at all.
To me, I'd rather of see 3DS as is with enough of a control scheme to match competitors to get all Nintendo's got plus the ports of others.
WiiU better do same thing. It better be powerful enough to be within reason to the next MSony consoles so 3rd parties will put games on it too. I know it already will have control options that give them portability, all that may be missing is raw power.
