• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Do Nintendo Fans Refuse to Adapt?

Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Location
Louisiana, USA
This is a topic that I’ve seen scattered throughout the internet, and I thought it would make a good conversation. I’ve attempted to put my own spin on it so that it’s tailored a bit more towards what this board’s interests seem to be, which is, at the moment, Zelda and Smash Bros. I think other series are certainly just as relevant and not immune to critique though, so just keep that in mind.

I was a little baffled to discover that the Gamecube controller and adapter for the Wii U that’s going to be simultaneously released with it would be exclusive to only one game, Smash Bros for Wii U. This is a weird decision, seeing as the Wii U is backwards compatible with the Wii, which in turn used the Gamecube controller as a method of control for many of its best games (Smash Bros Brawl being perhaps the most popular among said games). This on top of the not-so-unlikely event that actual Gamecube games become downloadable via Virtual Console seems to indicate that the Wii U’s use of the Gamecube controller is solely for that of Smash Bros, nothing else, nothing more.

A common criticism of Nintendo in general is that they re-hash the same type of tropes and game elements over and over, and that fans are constantly content with the same old series under the same old premise. This is seen in the likes of modern Mario with Super Mario 3D World, and Pokemon with Pokemon X and Y. The argument basically boils down to Nintendo fans being completely content with the same characters in the same game, whilst refusing to move forward with different plot elements, different methods of control, and just an all-around “samey” feel to everything, for lack of a better term. This is compounded in its essence in this one-shot Gamecube controller adapter, seemingly the symbol of all things “refusing-to evolve”, as it does, at present time, seem to lack any other functionality besides caving into the “competitive” Smash Bros crowd which absolutely refused to adapt to anything else.

I’m personally not a fan of Melee elitist attitudes at all, but I can’t help but think that this one-shot adapter is just that: A symbol of elitist attitudes that won’t leave an almost 15 year old game in the past. But I think that’s about as far as it goes, honestly. The notion that all Nintendo games are the same is absolutely asinine, to a certain extent. I find myself constantly weary of the same type of attitude and atmosphere that all Nintendo games seem to bring with them, but it’s hardly the truth that many of the games in the Nintendo library lack originality. Yes, they all seem to be bright, colorful, and cheerful to an extent that you get overloaded and bored of how they’re presented (Examples such as the aforementioned Mario 3D World, Pokemon X and Y, Pikmin 3, Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker HD, Kirby: Triple Delux, Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, Yoshi’s Wooly World, etc.), but there’s almost never a game that doesn’t bring something new to the table when it comes to how Nintendo games are actually played and handled.

I’m all for additional control options for Smash 4, and I don’t think it’s ever a bad thing to have as many as you can as long as it doesn’t water down the game proper. I won’t be buying a Gamecube controller adapter, just because I’ve come to like the Wii U pro controller as a result of games like Mario Kart 8, and many people I’ll most likely play Smash 4 with also have their own pro controllers and/or wii remotes and other various methods of playing the game.

I guess my real question is this – Do you feel that this one-shot adaptor symbolizes or helps exacerbate the notion that Nintendo and its fans refuse to adapt? And if so, do you feel that this can be seen in other series such as modern day Mario, Zelda, or Pokemon?
 
Joined
May 4, 2014
Location
California
the people who complain that Nintendo constantly rehashes their content forget that its not the only company who does so. and besides we see a lot of smaller changes in the older franchises. I don't think its a matter of fans/company not adapting, that's a pretty broad statement, I think its a matter of ninty and its fans taking smaller steps and lastly, I don't think major gaming companies have come up with anything genuinely gamebreaking in a while. seen some neat indie games with cool ideas.
 

Justac00lguy

BooBoo
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Gender
Shewhale
I remember making a post a while back (well thread) asking whether Nintendo is too familiar [here] and I think it relates to some of the points you've made here. Nintendo is always safe safe when it comes to their games - they stick to what they know and generally stay within their comfort zone. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it creates this problem of familiarity, which not only affects their image, but it affects their ability to draw new audiences in (the Wii U is proof) and their ability to keep existing fans interested in their product.

Thing is, there will always be Nintendo die hards, I'm sure a lot of members here are such, but that's not the full picture. Nintendo's future isn't bright if they rely on the same old clichés and bag of tricks. And no I'm not saying to get rid of the likes of Mario, Zelda, Kirby etc. but you have a great example--about the Wii U's library--that it's just to darn familiar. Here's what I see from an outside perspective and a previous owner of the console:

  • Super Mario 3D World - a very similar game, in terms of design, to its 3DS counterpart.
  • Super Mario Bros. U - basically the same game we've seen over the last 4 instalments.
  • Wind Waker HD - a remake.
  • Wii Party U - I don't really need to even say anything here.
  • Nintendoland - the successor to Wii Sports, different but still the same concept of fun bright family first game for the console.
  • Pikmin 3 - can't really say anything as I haven't played it, but it's probably a lot similar to its predecessors.
  • Mario Kart 8 - don't need to say anything here.
  • Game & Wario - same Wario party game.
  • Mario & Sonic at the Olympics Super Unneeded Sequel - really?

Now I'm not saying sequels are bad, no whatsoever, but look at the list here and this is the same stuff we've seen generation after generation, console after console. You could place this library on any of Nintendo's consoles and you wouldn't even notice the difference (well except for graphically).

Nintendo put all their eggs in one basket with their console innovation, but without evolving the games they're producing, it's still the same stuff. I mean could you imagine Sony still relaying on their old console mascots? The likes of Crash and Spyro? Sure they're still very popular amongst older fans, but Sony have adapted and now have a plethora of new mascots and they still continue to present new franchises. Some successful, some not so much; however they're still evolving one way or another. When's the last time Nintendo provided us with huge new successful franchises that shape the console's future? Gee I'm struggling to think.

---

I'm sorry for going off on quite the tangent, but it relates to what I'm going to say here. Nintendo are too safe when it comes to their exclusives and rely on the veteran Nintendo fan to buy the game. So when you have games like Smash, with the option of using a 10 year old controller, then they're going to use that. Do I blame them? No, it's what they've become accustom to due to Nintendo failing to truly adapt and change their core over the years.
 

Garo

Boy Wonder
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Location
Behind you
I really think that offering a controller adapter to let people use a similar controller (or in some cases the exact same controller) that has become a standard for the franchise is nothing more than providing fans options. It's not an issue with other console manufacturers as their controllers are, generally speaking, very similar from generation to generation. Nintendo has thrown out their controller design each generation after the SNES (and even the SNES controller was a significant leap from the NES, if not a total revolution), so for a game with such a competitive component as Smash Bros, it's perfectly reasonable to allow options for players to keep using the same input. Fighters have such a muscle memory and split second reaction component that controller choice is a significant part.

It's also more than a little absurd to suggest that of all the major console manufacturers, Nintendo is the one with a fanbase averse to change. Nintendo, who has more or less completely changed the style of games their consoles can provide by pushing new input methods every generation. Nintendo, whose inclusion of motion controls took the industry by storm and launched an entire subgenre (of mixed success, sure). We can debate all day long whether Nintendo's innovations are meaningful, but it's pretty cut and dried that they change constantly, and the audience follows. They adapt.
 

Chinagin

Son Just Died. Huh.
Joined
Oct 1, 2014
Location
Fortune Street
Any fandom has issues adapting. Whether its Nintendo or Microsoft or Game Grumps or Colgate, there are sections of fandoms that whine and complain if anything changes.

Its science.
 

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
The question is why does Nintendo need to needlessly change their control scheme every generation when they already had a perfect control in Gen 6?
 

Hanyou

didn't build that
I don't really get the argument that Nintendo rehashes things or that Nintendo fans are content with rehashes. The Wind Waker is a vastly different experience from Ocarina of Time. Super Mario Galaxy is vastly different from Super Mario 64. Metroid: Other M is very different from the Prime games. The list goes on.

Thing is, there will always be Nintendo die hards, I'm sure a lot of members here are such, but that's not the full picture. Nintendo's future isn't bright if they rely on the same old clichés and bag of tricks. And no I'm not saying to get rid of the likes of Mario, Zelda, Kirby etc. but you have a great example--about the Wii U's library--that it's just to darn familiar.

If it's a problem of a lack of new IP, well, first of all, Nintendo doesn't release many games in their most popular series per generation. We only get one or two main-series Mario games per generation, for example, with the exception of the NES. We only get one Mario Kart game, one or two Zelda games, etc.

Meanwhile, there were four Assassin's Creed games last gen, two main-series Halo games, THREE Uncharted games, etc. Hell, you could even argue there were three Elder Scrolls games--Fallout 3 used the same template, after all, and it feels much more like Skyrim than Oblivion did. Nintendo rarely does anything like that--each series feels distinct, which is why we don't have an F-Zero right now.

Second of all, there isn't any more innovation in any of these prominent non-Nintendo series than there is in Nintendo series. Sure, the games may end up feeling quite different (see the Arkham Asylum - City transition), but that can happen with Nintendo's games as well (see any Nintendo series that made the shift to 3D, and the ways 3D was utilized henceforth. Majora's Mask is as much of a shift from Ocarina of Time as City was from Asylum).

If you bring handhelds into the discussion, keep in mind it's a different ecosystem. But once again, you don't see too many releases in any one series. We have gotten, so far, only one Mario Kart, one New Super Mario Bros., and one to two Zelda games for each handheld generation.

Nintendo fans CLAMOR to bring back classic franchises, CLAMOR for more entries in each series, and people still argue that Nintendo just keeps rehashing the same ideas. Look at any individual console and you know that's not true--they release no more in any individual series than any other developer, and generally release less.

Nintendo doesn't give us many new IPs, true, but that's only been true since the last generation. Even then, they did give us the generation-defining Wii Sports on the release of the Wii, and don't forget how important Nintendogs was to the DS's success. Xenoblade is one of the best RPG of last gen. This gen, we've gotten both revivals of classic franchises (see Kid Icarus) and we have games like Splatoon on the horizon.

I'm a Nintendo fan, but I'm also informed about the market. I've enjoyed the Arkham games, the Portal games, Elder Scrolls, Tales games, even smaller games like Cave Story. These are all great fun, but they also make it very clear to me that no other developer or series gives us any more innovation than Nintendo and its in-house studios. In fact, the big surprises of each gen, for me, tend to come from Nintendo now that Sega's gone. Mario Galaxy practically reinvented the 3D platformer, for example, with its polish and focus on actual platforming. Xenoblade seamlessly merged Western and Eastern RPG elements for an addictive and robust experience. Wii Sports did its thing, which doesn't interest me but isn't any less important for it.

As someone who once preferred Sega over Nintendo, I have a high standard of innovation and am not attached to Nintendo simply for nostalgic reasons. Nintendo's about the only company left that I feel consistently makes games for me, to appeal to my taste. When I buy one of their platforms, it's an investment in a promise of solid experiences that I can't get anywhere else. Their consistent surprises and yes, also refinement, are what keep me coming back.

As for the Gamecube controller, I like it but I'm not fanatical about it. I don't think it represents anything about me or even most Nintendo fans.
 
Last edited:

Justac00lguy

BooBoo
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Gender
Shewhale
If it's a problem of a lack of new IP, well, first of all, Nintendo doesn't release many games in their most popular series per generation. We only get one or two main-series Mario games per generation, for example, with the exception of the NES. We only get one Mario Kart game, one or two Zelda games, etc.

Meanwhile, there were four Assassin's Creed games last gen, two main-series Halo games, THREE Uncharted games, etc. Hell, you could even argue there were three Elder Scrolls games--Fallout 3 used the same template, after all, and it feels much more like Skyrim than Oblivion did. Nintendo rarely does anything like that--each series feels distinct, which is why we don't have an F-Zero right now.
I get that argument, I do, but Nintendo has rinsed and repeated that same formula for generations and multiple platforms now. This is where the comparison with the 7th gen kind of falls away in my opinion as that's purely that generation. We've had Nintendo produce similar libraries for decades now. I'd argue the Fallout comparison, but that's straying off topic, lol.

Hanyou said:
Second of all, there isn't any more innovation in any of these prominent non-Nintendo series than there is in Nintendo series. Sure, the games may end up feeling quite different (see the Arkham Asylum - City transition), but that can happen with Nintendo's games as well (see any Nintendo series that made the shift to 3D, and the ways 3D was utilized henceforth. Majora's Mask is as much of a shift from Ocarina of Time as City was from Asylum).
I would definitely agree here, and Nintendo isn't an exception when it comes to similar concepts rehashed and repackaged. And, my personal opinion? Well I'm not against it, I love the Zelda series and quite a few Nintendo franchises that could be placed in this bracket. However, I'm not arguing this point from my perspective but more so from Nintendo trying to branch out to the customer who might buy a Nintendo console, but currently isn't. This problem stems from image, which is why familiarity is a big problem for Nintendo currently.

Hanyou said:
Nintendo fans CLAMOR to bring back classic franchises, CLAMOR for more entries in each series, and people still argue that Nintendo just keeps rehashing the same ideas. Look at any individual console and you know that's not true--they release no more in any individual series than any other developer, and generally release less.
This is where I kind of disagree here. You mention "Nintendo fans" and that's exactly the problem. All of this caters solely to Nintendo fans. More entries in Zelda, Metroid and Mario? Yes please. Bring back old forgotten franchises that I loved from my childhood? Yes please. This perfectly explains this loop that Nintendo is currently in and, in a way, a catch-22. Nintendo love to stay within their comfort zone when the comes to their exclusive content, mainly because they know the average Nintendo fan, the ones who buy each console, will buy it. They also have a grip on a percentage of the casual gamer market due to the gamer friendliness of series like Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros. and even the likes of Wii Fit. So they stick to their guns knowing that it's a safe play. However when you put this in the context of Nintendo performing heavily under projected financial predictions, then you have a problem.

The Wii U isn't doing exactly great, competition-wise and sales prediction-wise. So when you have Nintendo using the same old ideas but they're not exactly working, you have the dilemma they're in right now. Do they continue with their ways, or should they branch out a bit. Invest in some new IPs that could shape the company's image much like Mario did, or play it safe and maintain their image to please their existing fans?

The way I look at it is, if Sony never planned on expanding, evolving, adapting (whatever you want to call it) they would be still relying on franchises like Crash and Spyro to act as their trusty mascots. Thing is, the old fanboy in me would still love to see those series, but Sony have moved on to bigger and better things and currently have the best selling and fastest selling console out there. I'm not necessarily saying it's objectively the best, or that other factors haven't played a part, but that speaks for itself.

Hanyou said:
Nintendo doesn't give us many new IPs, true, but that's only been true since the last generation. Even then, they did give us the generation-defining Wii Sports on the release of the Wii, and don't forget how important Nintendogs was to the DS's success. Xenoblade is one of the best RPG of last gen. This gen, we've gotten both revivals of classic franchises (see Kid Icarus) and we have games like Splatoon on the horizon.
The Wii will always be an anomaly in terms of precise and fantastic marketing and innovation at exactly the right time it was needed. So I would more a label Wii Sports as a taster, that came with every console mind you, of what was to come. I'd agree with you on Nintendogs, even though that success was short lived. Xenoblade I'm not sure on though. I've heard great things, but would you really consider it to be one of Nintendo's big franchise players? I don't think it sold that greatly considering it was on the biggest selling console for the 7th generation. Though I think it's a series to watch though, as it could possibly draw a lot more attention to the Wii U.
 
D

Deleted member 14134

Guest
I think the idea of only allowing the adapter to be used for one game is a poor choice altogether then again Nintendo's poor management with their controllers is a whole different topic.

As for rehashing, although they use the same franchises over and over I never feel like I'm playing the same game from sequel to sequel. This is because they spend enough time between games to keep the same formula but change enough ideas to make it feel different. The same cannot be said about various other AAA developers whose sequels feel like a graphics update with new levels.
 

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
I can't recall exactly where I heard this, but I remember that I saw that modders discovered that Nintendo lied about Game Boy and Game Boy Color games functioning on the Nintendo DS. We were told that GB and GBC games had no way to work on the system and they wouldn't run because the necessary hardware wouldn't fit. As I recall, the modders discovered by filing off the pegs that prevented you from inserting the cartridges that Nintendo lied, and the the system's hardware and software that ran Game Boy Advance games was perfectly capable of running Game Boy and Game Boy Color games as well. I'm reasonably certain that the Wii U is entirely capable of running GameCube games and modders probably could get them to accept them and it'd run them just fine. Nintendo's done it before. They also have a history of not supporting control options they make available. The Pro Controller is not fully supported and on the Wii, the various verisons of the Class Controller and GameCube controller were also badly supported. So none of this surprises me.

I do get tired of them constantly gimmicking the controls. All I want is reasonable, practical controls that function properly and don't distract from the game. No motion controls, no touch screens, no nonsense. Gimmicks should be in the games themselves, not the hardware. Stop goofing around with the hardware. Put more effort into the games.
 

Onilink89

Nyanko Sensei
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Location
The Netherlands
I can type a really long post of this, but don't feel like it. All i wanna say is; Nintendo is refusing to adapt, the fans just either follow blindly or just have to deal with it and rant how bad it is. If Nintendo was actualy listening to fans, oh now thats a whole other story.
 

Akuhime-sama

What's Life Without Adult Humor?
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
None
I guess my real question is this – Do you feel that this one-shot adaptor symbolizes or helps exacerbate the notion that Nintendo and its fans refuse to adapt? And if so, do you feel that this can be seen in other series such as modern day Mario, Zelda, or Pokemon?
Nononono... no...

The reason they released it wasn't in order to symbolize anything.
The reason is that the controllers for the GameCube were PERFECT in controlling Smash.
Now, I myself am ready and able to adapt to new controls. However, my motor controls are not.
What I mean by this, is that if things are almost the same, but you swap the button functions, I will make mistakes.
If you look at the position of the buttons on a GC controller as opposed to say, the Wii classic controller, they are in different position.
Now, with Smash, you kind of have to know what controls what, and how to fully operate your character in order to do well.
If you are forced to swap to a new button config, it might prove very difficult and you probably won't be as good as you were on the other.
Simply because you'll still want to hit other things in the back of your mind, and it might mes you up- even if you try your best to adjust.

Though, I think this can only apply with such games that require many inputs and the knowledge of combos.
Because Games like Mario Kart only need Gas, brake, (sometimes)Drift, items, and perhaps an extra gimmick, they're easy to freely go from one control to another.
It takes much less memorization for games like this, thus easier to swap at any time. That's why the Wii remote + Nunchuck makes a decent controller for it. (though admittedly, not the best)
Smash Bros. however, requires more, and it might just be harder to get that 'right feel' for new controls.

But in short- Even though I might have not expressed myself as clear as I can (which I know I can do), My point is simply this: They released it simply because the Smash community demanded it. They demanded it because that's what they prefer as a controller. It's as simple as that. People like the GC controller for Smash games. So what? I say, for anyone who thinks that they 'can't adapt', you're totally wrong. People CAN adapt, but they still can have preferences. And by releasing this, it gives those who prefer the controller, the ability to choose what they feel most comfortable with.

And- just to add this little tidbit- I've been playing Hryule Warriors for a while now, and from using all three control styles, I still prefer the gamepad.
I mean, hell- there are other games I prefer it too!
The Gamepad is new, it's bigger, has a different feel, but I still prefer it over using the Wii Classic Pro for Super Mario 3D world.
I know how the Classic Pro feels, yet I prefer the new feel of the Wii U gamepad.
And if that's not adapting to a new controller, then I don't know what is.

Though, with the case of Hyrule Warriors, I prefer the Gamepad mainly because of the touch-screen item swap feature. It's a LOT more handy when facing many different things. It allows for faster item-swapping. Though this doesn't apply in local multiplyer-(Which it SHOULD)-or when you play without the TV output.

I think the idea of only allowing the adapter to be used for one game is a poor choice altogether
Wait- This adapter will ONLY work for Smash?
That sounds dumb... They could use it for SOOOO many other games. Like- what about Mario Kart? or others?
In a ton of Wii games, there's many ways to play, and GC controller is one of them. I'm sure they would be able to do the same.
And, using Wii games as an example- the Wii U can PLAY Wii games, so wouldn't it be useful for the Wii-game players to be able to play how they did on the Wii version? (assuming in this case they used GC controllers and just liked them the best) I mean, without that- that kind of takes away from the freedom of playing your games the way you like them. Doesn't sound like a smart move to me either.
 
Last edited:

CynicalSquid

Swag Master General
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Location
The End
Gender
Apache Helicopter
With what you said about the Gamecube controller adapter for smash; I think the problem is not that Nintendo fans can't adapt, it's that Nintendo fans are forced to adapt to vastly different controllers each generation. Playstation, Xbox, and PC gamer get the same exact controller each generation. Not much is changed for Playstation and Xbox controllers when the next generation comes, they are basically the same exact things. Nintendo never had the same exact controller design in any of their generations. Only the NES and SNES, the Gameboy line, and the DS/3DS line really had similar control designs. The N64 controller was not similar to any other Nintendo controller design. The Gamecube controller was not similar to any other Nintendo controller design. The Wii controller was not similar to any other Nintendo controller design. The Wii U controllers controller was not similar to any other Nintendo controller design. This is personally why I think they do rehash games at the start of their new consoles so they players van get used to the new controller design without having to learn it with an entirely different game. If it's not they reason they do it though, I still think it's a good thing. It helps them learn with something they are familiar with.

With what you said about rehashes though; I really don't think that rehashes are prominent in Nintendo's library. I feel like Mario and Pokemon are the only offenders of this, However, even with Mario and Pokemon repeating their same basic formula over and over again, these games still have unique titles in their franchises. Mario has Sunshine, Galaxy, 3D Land/3D World, and tons of unique spin-offs. Pokemon has a lot of unique spin-offs too. So, it's not like those franchises are just composed of rehashes. Also, even though a lot of their main series games use the same exact formula over time, I feel like they change enough for it to feel different and unique. Mario adds power-ups and Pokemon adds Pokemon and they added Mega Evolutions and a new Fairy-Type, and these things change the gameplay and make the games feel different enough to not be an exact rehash of older stuff. Same could be said about Zelda and Smash and a ton of other series that don't break from their formula much. Even though the structure is usually the same or very similar, they change stuff to make the gameplay and feel of the game completely different. For example, A Link Between Worlds has the exact same structure as A Link to the Past, but it changed the gameplay with the morphing in to walls mechanic and made it completely different game.

I feel like Nintendo is the only good company left, honestly. Other consoles have worse offenders of rehashing, and they also have broken games, unfinished games, and games that rely heavily on DLC.

It's not Nintendo fans that can't adapt, It's the PS/Xbox/PC fans that can't adapt so they settle for less.
 
Joined
May 4, 2014
Location
California
I think the rehashing feels more prominent with Nintendo because unlike Sony or Microsoft, its been around for several decades . and I agree with everyone who said that they do change a lot with their controllers. Muscle Memory plays a big role, it'd be like walking into the bathroom and getting confused because someone moved the light switch by the toilet.

I played NES. SNES and Sega, so the GBA felt comfortable as my first handheld but got frustrated with Wii controls at first because they were so different for what I was used to as I didn't own any consoles inbetween, clearly you get used to them, but I appreciate the games where I can opt to use classic. plus they've been making gimmicky controls for a lot longer then the wii, like the power pad, r.o.b and the powerglove. so they've been trying to push and perfect that for years.
 

Akuhime-sama

What's Life Without Adult Humor?
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
None
With what you said about the Gamecube controller adapter for smash; I think the problem is not that Nintendo fans can't adapt, it's that Nintendo fans are forced to adapt to vastly different controllers each generation. Playstation, Xbox, and PC gamer get the same exact controller each generation. Not much is changed for Playstation and Xbox........ ......It's not Nintendo fans that can't adapt, It's the PS/Xbox/PC fans that can't adapt so they settle for less.
I hadn't thought about it that way.
You bring up a great point, and I couldn't agree more.

Though the "good" in "good company" is subjective, I think this is a great line of reasoning.
And even in the PS4- they're getting a new controller, but it's not that much different from the others. It does have different design, and new features, (or so I'm told), so it's remarkably different than the other PlayStation controllers, but not as different as, say, the transition from Snes to N64, or N64 to GC, or GC to Wii...etc etc.. The only transition between previous PS controllers, has been from PS1 to PS1/PS2 (adding analog sticks & rumble) and from PS1/PS2 to PS3 (adding motion controls and a button that does nothing in-game, just used to navigate the system and put certain games on a pause-like state).... These are the only "new" adaptions to controllers over the years for Sony. (besides PS4) -So, they've kinda mainstreamed continuity of their controllers for all these years. They've always kept shape, kept buttons (names & colors of them), they've been pretty same through the years. Not that that's a bad thing... but being different is a nice change from the same. Though there are a lot that don't like it.

--

But to argue one point, I just don't agree with this:
(It's the only thing I don't agree with)
Playstation, Xbox, and PC gamer get the same exact controller each generation
First of all, they do change a bit, so it's NOT "exact" ...but that's not what really gets me...
It's primarily the mention of Xbox and PC...

First of all, Xbox controllers have changed. Maybe not all that dramatically, but it's still at least a noticeable difference.
They went from Clunky&Chunky, to Clunky, less chunky, to semi-clunky/semi-sleek, to now, still kinda clunkly, but a little less sleek- more retro/flat style goin' on.... I mean each one is a noticeable change, more so than PS controllers can say (heck they even changed a few buttons - the 'white/black' ones from the first controller), but also I guess all sort of similar to each other in overall design and buttons... overall that is. Then again, Microsoft Kinda "just started" this shin-dig thing of gaming. (as far as I know)... They joined the system making thing after Sony I'm fairly certain. Or at least I started hearing about Xbox about the time the PS2 was being whispered to be built. But even if they weren't, they still are fairly novice level console makers compared to other companies. They only have 3 systems so far. Sony has 4 and Nintendo has a crap-load. (not including handhelds for Sony or Nintendo) And- even on that, Microsoft hasn't made any handhelds yet. If they have, I don't know about them. Anyway, my point is, that Microsoft has yet to really make either a "signature design" or a "signature move" of changing designs. It's somewhere in the middle and can't decide to stay or go. I'm not really all that sure what to make of it either, since they only have had so many.

Now, as for PC- well, I have to really argue on this one. First of all, All home-owned computers are PCs. PC stands for Personal Computer. The only way a computer is NOT personal, is when it's a public computer you'd find, say, in a library or a school. Those aren't personal. Those aren't PCs. Secondly, a computer is not a gaming console. A computer is a computer. HOWEVER, there are gaming computers. That's why they call them gaming COMPUTERS, and NOT consoles. Because they are just that- computers.
Now that I have made that clarification, I'll discuss my objection. (in spoiler tag)
First of all, computers don't have controllers. Or at least they don't come with them when you buy them. (since they are not consoles) However, you CAN buy joypads and such that work on a computer. You can find any brand, any style, anything that anybody made for a computer. So, when it comes to consistency, computers are the LAST thing you can even use to describe consistency. HELL, they don't even know what consistency in controllers is. Because you can get almost any sort of controller in a computer form, that's not really an issue. like- at all. Specially since they don't make their own controllers. (since they are not a console) Though, since Microsoft, A well-known computer company, makes consoles too, they would obviously want to hint at their console product too, for sales, and that's why a lot of computer controllers are just Xbox controllers but perhaps slightly different. (Well, the Microsoft-brand ones anyway) But you don't have to stick with that design. That's the freedom of it. That is what breaks the chain of "continuity" and "lack of change"... heck, how can you really call something "lacking change" when it never had anything to begin with!? It's illogical and silly! xD

--To put it more simply, more short and sweet: The computer never had any 'controllers' to begin with, because it was never intended as a gaming device. (initially) , So, because of this, it made it open to all possibilities when people started using it as such. The computer has changed over the years, but it never was invented or intended for the purpose playing video games. That game way later, after video games were a thing. Consoles on the other hand, were MADE with the intention of playing video games in mind, thus- they have a controller. Computers didn't, so they were open to other controller makers. Therefore they can't 'lack change' in a particular thing they never even began with.

Now, if you are one of those strange weirdos that might classify 'keyboards' or 'keyboard & Mouse' as 'controllers' (though in actual anatomy of the root words can be understood), then I also have an argument against that. But again, it deals for what computers were intended for. They never were intended to play video games, so, keyboards can be ruled out. How? Well, Keyboards have a specific purpose and function that is only useful to computers. They were designed to conduct information from user to computer. (or so I can best use to illustrate my point) They had no idea what video games were when they invented the keyboard, they were just thinking: "okay, how can we type info to it?" - "use a pad with buttons!" ...or something of a nature. Typing info doesn't really always require a good know-how of the buttons or where your hand rests when you aren't pressing them- Not really in the same sense that you know how to control a character in a video game using a controller. The feel and purpose of Keyboards and actual video-game-console-controllers are completely different. So, we come back to the issue of how can you call some 'thing' "unchaining" or "un-original" when it never had the thing to begin with? Keyboards weren't meant for games, so they don't have to change. Keyboards already fit every purpose they ever were intended for. Mainly, typing. That's what they do best, and they don't need to change. Video games were introduced later, and people STARTED using computers for gaming... so they changed computers. And, if you even want to look at it that way, Computers' "lack of change" in gaming has no validity here, because it's not the computers that changed things in gaming, it's actually the other way around. GAMING changed COMPUTERS.

And also, just a side-note on this part of the post- PCs don't really have 'generations'... unless you count Operating Systems as 'generations', but this still doesn't really counter my point, or change the fact that computers have absolutely nothing to do with the idea of 'changing controllers' in the world of Video Games.
But, enough about computers. I've made my points as clear as I can- I just don't think you can bring computers into this argument at all.
In order to shorten it, because I know it was long, I'll put it in a spoiler tag so those who actually want to hear my thoughts/reasons on it in elaborate detail can do so above, and those who don't can ignore it and it won't take up so much space.

And that's all I have to say in response to this post. ^^

-PS: I know it's long, I know I can get carried away with typing, and I apologize, I've tried condensing it as much as I can, but I'm just trying to be clear about everything. It prevents people from getting confused about my ideas. I'm just trying to clarify the best I can, what I mean.

I don't try to, but I often find myself making "Batman-sized" posts, even about the simplest of things. But what can I say, I'm a philosopher who operates primarily on logic, and for me, it feels good to analyze and describe things in such a manner. To me, this is an exorcise workout routine for my brain. So, I apologize ahead of time for such long posts for such simple of topics. I even do this in real life when you catch me in a talkative mood... and I do it in my head all the time. I just simply can't help it. Perhaps I think too much... xD

Though, I don't think there is such a thing as 'too much thinking'...
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom