By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Splatoon: Nintendo why do you insist on bad ideas for great games?!

midrange on 01 June 2015
mZuzek said:
midrange said:

I second this, dual analog has been a staple in most games because it is naturally precise and quick. Otherwise motion control would have replaced the dual analog stick for the motion controls found in metroid prime (the kinect and in built gyroscopes in controllers would have allowed this to happen). You can prefer motion controls, but dual analog sticks won't be replaced in competitive tournaments for a while. Sometimes the old control schemes are the best and cannot be replaced, which is why the gamecube adapter was created for competitive play in smash bros.

The way you put it it's like dual analog controls and the Gamecube controller in SSB are perfect, better than everything else and whoever doesn't use them are at a natural disadvantage or something. No, the dual analog in Splatoon, as well as the Gamecube adapter for SSB exist because it's what a lot of people are used to and they obviously wouldn't want to change, but that doesn't mean they're better.


you're absolutely right. I was agreeing with the fact that they will always remain a staple in competitive play. They are liked, as you say, because they are naturally intuitive to use for presicion and speed without putting in a lot of physical exertion. In the case of the gamecube controller for smash bros, that will almost always be the controller of choice because competitive smash bros was pretty much made and adapted to with that controller in mind, not the gamepad or the wii remote. But the other options are still viable (I actually saw someone beasting at a smash tournament with the gamepad)



Around the Network
Cream147 on 01 June 2015
ohmylanta1003 said:
Cream147 said:
ohmylanta1003 said:
 


Completely disagree. I am always the top player on my team and I use dual analog. I find motion controls (for me) inferior.

You're the second person who has used that ridiculous argument with me in the past couple of days. Just because you're good at the game, doesn't mean you wouldn't be better if you mastered the motion controls. Again, you objectively would, because they simply allow for more precision (edit: and speed of movement). If this game ever gets played at a properly competitive level no one will be using dual analog.


It's a valid argument and certainly not as ridiculous as you make it seem. I disagree entirely that the best players would use motion controls and until someone proves me wrong, I'm going to continue thinking that. Sensitivity can also be changed, which means that your speed of movement argument falls apart. And I don't know why you get to say that motion controls are more precise, so I'll just state my opinion that not using motion controls allows for more controlled play. Let's not act like your statement isn't an opinion as well. If you would like to believe motion controls are better, you're entitled to that. But you cannot say at this point in time that regardless of the player, situation, etc. that motion controls are better than dual analog.

No, it is in fact completely ridiculous. It's not ridiculous to have a discussion about motion vs dual analog but to say "I'm always the best on my team therefore dual analog is better" is just logical nonsense.

Yes, you can alter the sensitivity of dual analogue and yes, this does help, but there are techniques you can use with the motion controls that allow for significantly faster speeds of movement than can be achieved with dual analog alone, and even on low sensitivities motion controls detect incredibly small movements - just try it, compare and contrast for yourself. That's where the precision comes in. If you master the motion controls, it is objectively true that you can be a better player than if you use dual analog - though I'll happily concede that the controls are harder to master and perhaps more temperamental in the hands of an imperfect human.

And dual analogs have already been vastly superceded in competitive play by mouse and keyboard. Dual analogue is a terrible system - a compromise because it was the best shooters could do with a Playstation controller. Why do you think most console shooters have an "auto-aim" whereas PC ones tend not to? The reason shooters are still primarily dual analog is because the convention is there, and developers are not brave enough to try and change it. Motion controls are a poison word now because of the misuse over the years, and yes, they are less convenient for casual gamers. However, the accuracy that they afford you now is starting to rear it's head. For example, in Majora's Mask 3D the shooting games went from pretty darn hard in the original to incredibly straightforward, nearly completely down to the gyroscope controls.

Again, I don't doubt it's possible to get good with dual analogues, and people may prefer to do that because it is easier and it is more what we're used to. But I'm telling you that the motion controls in the game can lead to a massive step up in play when in the hands of the right person. You're free to disagree, and I'll try my best to not call you ridiculous, but I can't make any promises!



Ataraxias on 01 June 2015
Cream147 said:
ohmylanta1003 said:
Cream147 said:
ohmylanta1003 said:
 


Completely disagree. I am always the top player on my team and I use dual analog. I find motion controls (for me) inferior.

You're the second person who has used that ridiculous argument with me in the past couple of days. Just because you're good at the game, doesn't mean you wouldn't be better if you mastered the motion controls. Again, you objectively would, because they simply allow for more precision (edit: and speed of movement). If this game ever gets played at a properly competitive level no one will be using dual analog.


It's a valid argument and certainly not as ridiculous as you make it seem. I disagree entirely that the best players would use motion controls and until someone proves me wrong, I'm going to continue thinking that. Sensitivity can also be changed, which means that your speed of movement argument falls apart. And I don't know why you get to say that motion controls are more precise, so I'll just state my opinion that not using motion controls allows for more controlled play. Let's not act like your statement isn't an opinion as well. If you would like to believe motion controls are better, you're entitled to that. But you cannot say at this point in time that regardless of the player, situation, etc. that motion controls are better than dual analog.

No, it is in fact completely ridiculous. It's not ridiculous to have a discussion about motion vs dual analog but to say "I'm always the best on my team therefore dual analog is better" is just logical nonsense.

Yes, you can alter the sensitivity of dual analogue and yes, this does help, but there are techniques you can use with the motion controls that allow for significantly faster speeds of movement than can be achieved with dual analog alone, and even on low sensitivities motion controls detect incredibly small movements - just try it, compare and contrast for yourself. That's where the precision comes in. If you master the motion controls, it is objectively true that you can be a better player than if you use dual analog - though I'll happily concede that the controls are harder to master and perhaps more temperamental in the hands of an imperfect human.

And dual analogs have already been vastly superceded in competitive play by mouse and keyboard. Dual analogue is a terrible system - a compromise because it was the best shooters could do with a Playstation controller. Why do you think most console shooters have an "auto-aim" whereas PC ones tend not to? The reason shooters are still primarily dual analog is because the convention is there, and developers are not brave enough to try and change it. Motion controls are a poison word now because of the misuse over the years, and yes, they are less convenient for casual gamers. However, the accuracy that they afford you now is starting to rear it's head. For example, in Majora's Mask 3D the shooting games went from pretty darn hard in the original to incredibly straightforward, nearly completely down to the gyroscope controls.

Again, I don't doubt it's possible to get good with dual analogues, and people may prefer to do that because it is easier and it is more what we're used to. But I'm telling you that the motion controls in the game can lead to a massive step up in play when in the hands of the right person. You're free to disagree, and I'll try my best to not call you ridiculous, but I can't make any promises!

You realize both of you are essentially making the same argument right?   A "pro" motion player could easily also pick up dual analogue for a step up in play. Hell we've seen handicapped players play games somewhat competitively with their feet.



curl-6 on 01 June 2015
Einsam_Delphin said:
curl-6 said:

Anybody who is at a disadvantage chose that disadvantage for themselves. Holding back everyone and the entire game because of some people's preference for a less effective control method is the worse route.

Good so you admit that is what makes an imbalance an inbalance, the only thing I was trying to get across here. I can't ignore how silly your second sentence is though. "Holding back everyone" then you contradict yourself by saying "some people's", makes sense as obviously not everyone likes motion controls, whereas everyone is perfectly capable of using the perfectly functional sticks that come with every Wii U system, hence no one is being held back. Could they have implemented the Wiimote? Sure, but by no means do they have to as it's not the system's primary controller. 

There's no contradiction. Forcing everyone to play with circa 1997 controls because some players won't adapt to more modern methods isn't a good thing. That's dumbing your game down  for the lowest common denominator. Thankfully, the gyro is optional, so people can play to their taste; the Wiimote would simply be an extension of this, offering a different method of motion control for those who want it. 



Lonely_Dolphin on 01 June 2015
curl-6 said:
Einsam_Delphin said:

"Holding back everyone" then you contradict yourself by saying "some people's", makes sense as obviously not everyone likes motion controls, whereas everyone is perfectly capable of using the perfectly functional sticks that come with every Wii U system, hence no one is being held back. Could they have implemented the Wiimote? Sure, but by no means do they have to as it's not the system's primary controller. 

There's no contradiction.


Dat denial! "Holding back everyone" then you contradict yourself by saying "some people's"



Around the Network
Johnw1104 on 01 June 2015

My only issue is the lack of local 3-4 player and local online play, but I can only be so frustrated as that's been the trend in gaming for years and Nintendo has generally be the lone holdout against it.

Still, that they finally caved in that area really bummed me out... I had a buddy over Friday and we'd have had a LOT more fun if we could have been playing simultaneously outside of 1v1... we played 1v1 twice and then opted to just take turns in online play. I think it's a victim of their desire to incorporate the gamepad via the map and touching where to launch, as now they can say they're "utilizing the gamepad" without giving a clear example of how it's not exactly necessary.

I like the gamepad's use in the game, but that certainly shouldn't be the reason we don't have local online play and local 4 player.



curl-6 on 02 June 2015
Einsam_Delphin said:
curl-6 said:

There's no contradiction.

Dat denial! "Holding back everyone" then you contradict yourself by saying "some people's"

Again, there was no contradiction. That you didn't quote my whole post is telling. Everyone would be held back by omitting motion controls, some just wouldn't mind being held back. But others would mind, because the game would be inferior for it.



ohmylanta1003 on 02 June 2015
Cream147 said:
ohmylanta1003 said:
Cream147 said:
ohmylanta1003 said:
 


Completely disagree. I am always the top player on my team and I use dual analog. I find motion controls (for me) inferior.

You're the second person who has used that ridiculous argument with me in the past couple of days. Just because you're good at the game, doesn't mean you wouldn't be better if you mastered the motion controls. Again, you objectively would, because they simply allow for more precision (edit: and speed of movement). If this game ever gets played at a properly competitive level no one will be using dual analog.


It's a valid argument and certainly not as ridiculous as you make it seem. I disagree entirely that the best players would use motion controls and until someone proves me wrong, I'm going to continue thinking that. Sensitivity can also be changed, which means that your speed of movement argument falls apart. And I don't know why you get to say that motion controls are more precise, so I'll just state my opinion that not using motion controls allows for more controlled play. Let's not act like your statement isn't an opinion as well. If you would like to believe motion controls are better, you're entitled to that. But you cannot say at this point in time that regardless of the player, situation, etc. that motion controls are better than dual analog.

No, it is in fact completely ridiculous. It's not ridiculous to have a discussion about motion vs dual analog but to say "I'm always the best on my team therefore dual analog is better" is just logical nonsense.

Yes, you can alter the sensitivity of dual analogue and yes, this does help, but there are techniques you can use with the motion controls that allow for significantly faster speeds of movement than can be achieved with dual analog alone, and even on low sensitivities motion controls detect incredibly small movements - just try it, compare and contrast for yourself. That's where the precision comes in. If you master the motion controls, it is objectively true that you can be a better player than if you use dual analog - though I'll happily concede that the controls are harder to master and perhaps more temperamental in the hands of an imperfect human.

And dual analogs have already been vastly superceded in competitive play by mouse and keyboard. Dual analogue is a terrible system - a compromise because it was the best shooters could do with a Playstation controller. Why do you think most console shooters have an "auto-aim" whereas PC ones tend not to? The reason shooters are still primarily dual analog is because the convention is there, and developers are not brave enough to try and change it. Motion controls are a poison word now because of the misuse over the years, and yes, they are less convenient for casual gamers. However, the accuracy that they afford you now is starting to rear it's head. For example, in Majora's Mask 3D the shooting games went from pretty darn hard in the original to incredibly straightforward, nearly completely down to the gyroscope controls.

Again, I don't doubt it's possible to get good with dual analogues, and people may prefer to do that because it is easier and it is more what we're used to. But I'm telling you that the motion controls in the game can lead to a massive step up in play when in the hands of the right person. You're free to disagree, and I'll try my best to not call you ridiculous, but I can't make any promises!


I'll guess I'll just disagree then. Sorry! I do concede the fact that there are better options than dual analog, but (in my opinion) motion controls are not one of them, no matter how good you get with them.



I bet the Wii U would sell more than 15M LTD by the end of 2015. He bet it would sell less. I lost.

captain carot on 02 June 2015

Still discussing the Best controls?
Where's mouse Support then? :p



midrange on 02 June 2015
mZuzek said:
midrange said:

you're absolutely right. I was agreeing with the fact that they will always remain a staple in competitive play. They are liked, as you say, because they are naturally intuitive to use for presicion and speed without putting in a lot of physical exertion. In the case of the gamecube controller for smash bros, that will almost always be the controller of choice because competitive smash bros was pretty much made and adapted to with that controller in mind, not the gamepad or the wii remote. But the other options are still viable (I actually saw someone beasting at a smash tournament with the gamepad)

Yep. It's funny, the best Smash player in my country actually lives in my town, so he goes at all our local tournaments and destroys us... with Wiimote+Nunchuk. I play with a Pro Controller, as do most people here, though there are several who use the Gamecube controller too.


Cool, sounds like we are on the same page