Are Developers Embracing Nintendo's Next-Gen Vision?
by Matt Leone  11.26.2005


After Nintendo's announcements at the Tokyo Game Show where the company
revealed its Revolution controller -- as a motion sensor-based object
shaped like a remote control that can attach to other peripherals to
create different functions -- people had questions. Lots of questions.
And while Nintendo has done a good job of getting information on the
controller's abilities out, there are still many questions fans have
been asking that will likely remain until we start to see actual
Revolution software.
Will the new controller lead to shorter games? How big of a deal is the
lack of HDTV support? Will traditional games be popular on a machine
designed to be different?

We took these and a few others to a group of impartial third-party
developers to get their takes on all things Revolution, and to get a
sense of how the development community views Nintendo now that the
company has moved in such a drastically different direction from
Microsoft and Sony.

Before we move on, meet our group of developers:

Tom Fulp, co-founder of The Behemoth
As one of the key figures behind indie breakout hit Alien Hominid, Fulp
is one of the few independent developers in the United States
developing GameCube titles. His team at The Behemoth is working on a
currently untitled side-scrolling four-player beat-'em-up for current
generation consoles.

Randy Pitchford, president of Gearbox Software
As the head of developer Gearbox, Pitchford has overseen one of the
most successful traditional game franchises in the past few years with
the Brothers In Arms series, which has distinguished itself from other
titles in the war shooter genre thanks to its extremely lifelike
artificial intelligence.

Karthik Bala, CEO of Vicarious Visions
Bala built Vicarious Visions into one of the most successful
development houses around, with numerous under-the-radar licensed hits
for Game Boy Advance and Nintendo DS, and the occasional big name title
like DOOM 3 on Xbox. With Tony Hawk's American Sk8land, VV has the only
third-party online Nintendo DS game currently on the market.

Geremy Mustard, co-founder of Chair Entertainment Group
One of the brothers behind the ambitious Advent Rising, Mustard is now
working on an unannounced next-gen game for his new entertainment
company, Chair. Not much is known about the new game nor company at
this point.

Eric Holmes, lead game designer at Radical Entertainment
Holmes most recently worked on the go-anywhere smash-anything
Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction for Vivendi. UD received a good
amount of critical acclaim for nailing the feel of controlling a
superhero, as players could run up buildings, leap off the top, and
even surf on broken-down buses.

Chris Charla, executive producer at Foundation 9 Entertainment
Before companies like Backbone, The Collective, and Pipeworks came
together to form Foundation 9, Charla served as one of the brains
behind the charming PSP platformer, DeathJr.


Moving Beyond Mini-Games

1UP: Since we haven't seen any real games yet for the system, we don't
know if it will be easy or difficult for developers to make games that
are more than just tech demos that use the Revolution system in some
fun-but-gimmicky way. How difficult do you think it will be for
developers to make full length games using the Revolution's controller
rather than just collections of Mario Party-style mini-games?
Tom Fulp (The Behemoth): I see the potential for serious full-length
games. For example, one of the most common ideas is using the analog
stick to run through the hallways of an FPS while shooting enemies with
the controller, or "pointer" as I've seen it called. Survival horror
games could be tons of fun, using the pointer as a flashlight or gun.
Maybe someone will make a Harry Potter game where you walk around and
wave your wand in different patterns to cast a variety of spells.
Sports games such as golf and baseball have obvious potential, but I'm
more curious about the original concepts people will come up with,
stuff we haven't thought about yet. Maybe a single player could twirl
two controllers over top each other to roll a Katamari, or wield two
guns at the same time while walking, ducking and jumping in place on a
dance pad.

Randy Pitchford (Gearbox): The controller has various configurations,
so I can imagine that you can do just about anything we're doing now on
the new system. I think that the interesting new thing is that we're
going to be able to make a game that can be controlled with one hand.



We'll also see some interesting things with two fisted control -- a
device in each hand. Right now, we waste so many of our ten fingers
just holding a controller...

Karthik Bala (Vicarious Visions): I think the learning curve will map
roughly similar to that of game designers learning to design for the DS
touch screen. At first the device will seem gimmicky as designers start
out creating some simple applications. But as they get used to the
mindset of developing for the Revolution controller, you will start to
see more sophisticated game designs. For developers, programming the
controller shouldn't be all that challenging. Now, coming up with a
great game design -- that will be challenging!

Geremy Mustard (Chair): I don't think it will be difficult at all to
make full length titles for the Revolution. First of all, Nintendo has
hinted that they will provide an add-on for the controller that will
mimic a "normal" controller, like the GameCube's Wavebird controller.
Second, as long as the device is light, movement based input is not
that tiresome. I have used a gyroscopic mouse for many years, and can
successfully play many games with it. I would presume that games
specifically tuned for the Revolution's controller will be easy to use
for extended periods of time. As a bonus, gamers who play that long
will end up with impressive looking forearms!

Eric Holmes (Radical): I don't know that it's going to be more
difficult than existing games -- but it is going to be difficult in
different, new ways. What I mean by this is that everyone in
development has the problem of finding a way you use the controller as
a fun, intuitive device to effectively put a smile on the face of the
gamer. With this new controller there are fewer proven models, so it'd
be probably easier to find new ways to create fun experiences, which is
always interesting to gamers. At the same time, it'll be harder to hone
them due to a lack of proven successful models.

For example: I've heard a lot of mention about how a sword-fighting
game might be fun on the Revolution. I am sure there will probably be
at least a few of them in the first year or so of the console's
release. I am also sure that some of them will suck in some capacity,
just because it's going to take time, effort and mistakes for people to
figure out if and how it can be done in a fun way. If developers figure
it out and consumers vote with their dollars then you might have whole
new genres popping up on the Revolution that just can't be done
elsewhere.

Chris Charla (Foundation 9): Revolution is something new, so it won't
be as easy to design for as the current controller, if for no other
reason than it requires some original thinking. But I think a ton of
people already have ideas for things that are well beyond the gimmick
stage. If you say, "Oh, you can only use the controller as a gimmick,"
you're not likely to come up with something that isn't a gimmick. I
think for a lot of developers, the jury is out until they can get it
and try it for themselves, but I don't think there are too many people
in the development community who've dismissed it out of hand based on
what they've seen so far.

Game Length
1UP: Do you think in general Revolution games will be shorter or
smaller in scope than games for Xbox 360 and PS3, either due to players
getting tired or game concepts not holding up over time?
Tom Fulp (The Behemoth): Revolution seems more geared towards family
fun, so games of epic scope seem less necessary. There is concern about
games being too gimmicky and not having long-term replay value beyond
the initial concept, but I have confidence that many games will be
addictive and provide long-term enjoyment with friends. There will be
must-have games, as well as some duds. I think the games produced by
Nintendo will be worth the price of admission. If long-term play
becomes an issue, they could always make a game where you perform daily
exercises with the pointer and watch your character get bulked up over
time.

Randy Pitchford (Gearbox): I don't think that the scope of a game has
anything to do with the interface. The scope of the games are going to
be driven by the dreams of our customers.

Karthik Bala (Vicarious Visions): I don't think the scope or length of
games will be any different than Xbox 360 or PS3 titles. The play
length sessions or logical break points in the design might be
different depending on the use of the controller. Many people initially
saw the DS as a gimmicky control scheme and didn't feel the software
library was going to hold up over time.


But look at the refreshingly original titles and unique game
experiences that have come out this fall! Even established franchises
are getting their unique spin on the DS that is setting them apart from
the other platforms. I think what Nintendo is going after is giving
players new kinds of game experiences -- not just the same old with
better graphics.

Geremy Mustard (Chair): I think that Revolution games will be shorter
on average than the other consoles due to the different marketing
strategy of Nintendo rather than controller difficulties. I think
Nintendo is attempting to broaden the game market, and is doing so by
making games simpler to play. The easier learning curve of most
Revolution games will appeal to many people who are turned off by
today's overly complex games. For example, my girlfriend will sit down
and play Tetris or Super Mario Bros with me, but hates Halo just
because she cannot compete well. Of course there will also be many
next-gen games made for the Revolution, but hopefully there will be
many more simple ones.

Eric Holmes (Radical): In short, no. I think there are well established
standards of 'value for money' in games, and unless the prices drop I
don't think people will buy games from the platform if they all cost
the same but have less 'value.' For example, with an action game you'll
see that reviewers will tend to ding you on play time if your game can
be finished in less than 10 to 12 hours -- even more so if you have no
solid replay value. That's perceived as the value you expect for the
$50 game. If the games are shorter, I think the only way they'll get
away from hurting in reviews and sales is that they'd need to offer a
huge amount of replay value, or cost less.

Also, it's something new -- so mistakes will be made. Some people will
ship versions of their games that don't work with the unit, and some
people will try new ideas that just don't really 'click' but will ship
anyway. I think the key at the early stages will be to start simple.

Chris Charla (Foundation 9): This is kind of an "are you still beating
your wife" question! I mean, yes, if the games suck or are tiring,
people will probably play them less. But since we don't yet know if the
games will make people tired or suck, it's kind of hard to answer this
question!

Seriously though, Nintendo has said they are looking to lower
development costs, and I think if dev. costs are lower -- and if those
lower costs are passed on to consumers, in the form of lower price
points -- you might see more limited experiences getting green lit and
produced. If you look at price points now, you don't necessarily expect
or need as much from a $19.99 or $29.99 title as you do from a $49.99
game. If that encourages more $29.99 games like Katamari, I'm all for
it, even if I don't get 60 hours of gameplay with every game.


Supporting Ports
1UP: One of the concerns we hear a lot is whether Revolution will be
able to support traditional third-party games -- Splinter Cell, Madden,
etc. Do you think this is accurate? And does it matter as much as many
people think it will?
Tom Fulp (The Behemoth): The default Revolution controller won't be
conducive to traditional games, so I expect the Revolution will be more
reliant on original titles that take advantage of the peripherals that
come with the system. It means that gamers will most likely own a
Revolution in addition to their other console of choice, which is a
nice niche for Nintendo, considering there isn't much room for three
nearly-identical consoles. I think it will be common for someone to own
a PS3 and a Revolution or an Xbox 360 and a Revolution, but not a PS3
and Xbox 360 without a Revolution.

I do have concerns as a developer. If the Revolution doesn't offer a
large enough install base, it will be a tough sell for companies to
focus their development efforts on a single platform. At The Behemoth,
we are a small team and can only make one game at a time. It's great
because we have tons of creative freedom and make the games we want to
make. We serve a niche audience but we still have to watch our bottom
line. The question arises as to whether we want to make a really cool,
unique game for a very large potential audience, or if we want to make
something for a niche platform with a much smaller but dedicated
audience. If we come up with a game idea specifically for the
Revolution that is just too fun to pass up, I'm sure we'll do it. The
other scenario is the Revolution will get a port of a game that works
on the other consoles as well.

Randy Pitchford (Gearbox): If customers are there demanding these
games, the games will be there, too. The big publishers don't like to
leave money on the table, so they'll find a way to make the biggest
brands work on the Revolution.


[ Click to enlarge ]
Will there be games that "pull a Halo" and popularize new control
schemes for traditional game types?
With respect to big franchises that we play on other platforms, I think
some of the Revolution offerings may bring some new, better approaches
to doing things we're used to doing with a joystick.

Karthik Bala (Vicarious Visions): I know there seems to be that fear.
But that is very similar to a few years back when people were skeptical
that a good FPS couldn't be done properly on a console because it
didn't have a mouse and keyboard. Halo changed the mainstream
perception of that and I think you are going to see some established
franchises appear on the Revolution that are going to be genius on the
platform. Of course the game won't be exactly the same game as [it
would be on] PS3 or Xbox 360 -- but really, what's the point in that?

I think we all need to widen the lens and not see the next generation
of consoles being direct competitors of each other. Stop comparing
hardware specs and who's got the bigger CPU. Just give me some good
games with more innovation in game design...dammit!

Geremy Mustard (Chair): The Revolution will be much more powerful than
the GameCube. I think people will be surprised at how many games will
continue to be made across all three consoles. Game developers are
becoming better at making their engines scalable, so that they can
easily downsize textures, reformat audio, etc, so games can still be
made to look pretty on some systems yet still play well on less capable
ones.

Eric Holmes (Radical): It's going to force a change. Nintendo did say
that the "regular" controller will also be on sale, but developers have
to support the standard -- and as you can see the standard controller
is very different from what's currently out there. There are fewer
buttons. You can't easily access more than four total at a time (two
face, two shoulder). It's a different medium and, yes, that means
traditional third party games will not be able to port directly. The
games will have to change, having controls moved, removed or
simplified.

To risk stating the obvious, the Revolution controller doesn't have the
same basic controls as current or next-gen consoles -- the current
standard for PS3 and X360 is one d-pad, two analog sticks, four face
buttons plus four shoulder buttons.



Having consistency across those platforms is very good for a developer
-- it means you can use all the buttons if you should want to, rather
than catering to the lowest common denominator. A classic example of a
game hurting when it gets ported is the GTA series going to Xbox. The
GTA games look slick on the Xbox with all that extra hardware
horsepower, but I just can't get used to playing the game with the
funky control layout -- just because the Xbox lacks those two essential
shoulder buttons that tie directly into how GTA was designed. You see
the same problem in Liberty City on the PSP -- it's a miracle to see it
running on the handheld, but with no right stick for camera controls
and drive-bys the game suffers.

Now, let's look at this in as an issue for Nintendo. Does this matter
to them, and their consumers? Probably not. Cross-platform development
games typically sell less on the GameCube. The real money makers are
Nintendo's own games and properties -- the Marios, the Zeldas -- and
since they're not actually going to be running on an X360 or PS3 any
time soon, Nintendo just isn't worried about that. Nintendo sells more
of its games on its platform, with a higher royalty for them per game
sold. They are the developer, publisher, licenser, and hardware
manufacturer all in one.

This definitely means you're going to see fewer games that ship on
X360/PS3/Revolution. I think third-party developers will focus on one
platform or the other and this will be evident in the game from the
design up. A complex X360 or PS3 game won't map well to the Revolution
controller for lack of buttons and sticks, and likewise will suffer if
it's ported with control sacrifices. Interestingly, a Revolution game
that fully depends on the Rev. controller cannot be ported to
PS3/X360...it just won't work.

Nintendo seem to be very ballsy in making this move -- maybe they think
it's time to take a gamble. At the time of writing they are stilly a
very successful and profitable company, and I think it won't make too
much of a difference for them. Their Zeldas, Marios, Metroids and other
landmark properties are still cash cows for them and they don't seem to
be worried about that audience going away.

Chris Charla (Foundation 9): I don't think it's accurate [that
Revolution will have trouble with traditional games], and I don't think
it matters as much as people think it will. One of the main features of
the [system] is you can just hook a GCN controller up to it, so it
would be pretty easy for third-party games such as sports titles to
simply support the "classic" controller if they felt like they needed
to. So, worst case, you may not see as many people supporting the
unique features of the Revolution as you want, but if people buy the
system, third parties will figure out a good way to get games on it!


Enhancements and The HDTV Issue
1UP: How common do you think it will be to see completely new game
types on Revolution, as opposed to adapted/altered/enhanced versions of
normal game genres with a few Revolution specific features?
Tom Fulp (The Behemoth): I like to think new game types will be more
common, while there is decent potential for enhancing existing games.
You could control Dante in Devil May Cry with the analog stick, but
swing the pointer like a sword to attack enemies and perform original
combos. Some attempts to enhance traditional games will probably come
off as cheesy gimmicks, while others could be tons of fun. I think the
best games will be ones that have the Revolution in mind from the
start.

Randy Pitchford (Gearbox): I expect that we'll see a lot of interesting
new approaches on the Revolution. It took a few months, but we're now
seeing some really interesting things with the Nintendo DS -- I would
expect the same kind of thing with the Revolution. Nintendo has driven
the way on console interfaces for quite some time -- I think this one
is a big, interesting step that we're all going to want to pay
attention to.

Karthik Bala (Vicarious Visions): I think you are going to see a mix of
both. That portfolio mix is going to be very important to the success
of Revolution. I'd love to see a new genre of gaming appear on the
Revolution as a result of the controller. But the
quirky/different/unique type of game isn't everyone's cup of tea.


Traditional game genres and established franchises with new twists and
unique gameplay need to be there in equal measure.

Geremy Mustard (Chair): I think we will see a lot of innovation on the
Revolution if Nintendo creates a flexible price point for smaller
games.

Eric Holmes (Radical): I think it will be up to Nintendo to drive this.
That's what they're good at -- forging new ground with the medium
they've defined. For example, while there are some really fun games on
the DS (Castlevania being my favorite!) it only seems to be Nintendo
who are making experimental use of the touch-screen.

I think maybe they're burning their boats on the shore -- for a reason.
Designing it to be so different can't have been an accident. It doesn't
seem like it would have been impossible to design a controller with the
new functionality and the old in one...they've chosen this path
deliberately. As a multiplatform developer, adding new functionality to
the familiarity of the old pad is what I would have preferred. The
bottom line is that the controller layout doesn't support the way you'd
play many existing games -- so if you want to run a game on the
Nintendo box, developers are now forced to re-imagine their control
systems.

Chris Charla (Foundation 9): You'll see both. You'll see some people
take stabs at totally original things, and you'll see some people just
do a few Revolution specific things. How many of the "new game types"
will stick is impossible to say. Just like DS, there will be a period
of gimmicky things that kind of don't work, and there may be some
traditional genres that may be really enhanced by the controller, and
then there is always the chance that there will some crazy breakout hit
that changes everything!

1UP: We're seeing in a lot of early Xbox 360 games that games designed
for HDTVs don't always look significantly better than current
generation games when shown on normal televisions. With this in mind,
is the lack of HD support for Revolution a big deal? Will it benefit
those who don't have an HDTV, rather than just hurting those that do
have one?

Tom Fulp (The Behemoth): I don't consider lack of HD support to be too
big a deal at the moment. I've always been more of a frame-rate nut
myself; I like my frame-rates fast and smooth. My big concern with HD
games is that a lot of them are sacrificing smooth frame-rates for
sharper resolutions, which kills the game for me. HD support is a
definite plus, but I don't think it will make or break the Revolution.

Randy Pitchford (Gearbox): I'm an HDTV user, so for me this is a big
deal. I don't think it's going to be a big deal in the market when the
Revolution launches, but it's going to be a much bigger deal in 2008 or
2009.



Fortunately, HD isn't something that's impossible to scale to. Nintendo
could offer a new model of the Revolution in 2008 or so that features
HD support and will be fully backwards compatible with all prior games.

Karthik Bala (Vicarious Visions): HD is not as important as hype might
lead you to believe -- well, at least not yet. Sure, for those of us
with the home theater or lots of discretionary income, this is
important. For those of us who put HD as a high requirement, the PS3 or
360 might be the first choice. That's perfectly fine. I think Nintendo
is trying to make the system very affordable, so it can appeal to a
broader audience and it might also be the second system in the home for
many of us hardcore gamers. It could be the system in the bedroom with
the HD-based system in the living room.

The other thing is, if you look at the consumer market on a worldwide
basis, HD penetration is low. Sure it's growing, but over the next few
years, I'll bet it is still a small percentage of the overall installed
base of televisions.

Geremy Mustard (Chair): It seems to me that it wouldn't be too hard or
expensive for Nintendo to support HDTV output. That would at least
allow the developers to make up their own minds about whether their
game can support it or not. Many games do not support HDTV because it
takes up so much memory for the display buffer and z buffer, not to
mention other buffers that may be needed for special screen effects.
The simplest games need 4 bytes per pixel, so 480p = 640x480x4, which
is about 1.2 MB. 1080i = 1920x1080x4 = 7.9 MB. Many games require
multiple screen buffers for various effects, which can easily quadruple
these numbers. 24 megabytes just for the screen? That's more memory
than the GameCube even had! But some games could easily support that
because they use less memory overall. It should be the choice of the
developer, though, and Nintendo should support HDTV output on the
Revolution.

Chris Charla (Foundation 9): I don't think it's that big of a deal.
It's a bummer, and a little irritating, but for the next generation,
it's probably not required that your system support HD. I have an HDTV,
but I still watch a lot of plain old NTSC content. If the games are
good, people won't care if they have to play them in 480i. If the games
suck, 1080p doesn't fix that, either!



1UP: What's something about the controller/system you think hasn't
gotten enough attention?
Tom Fulp (The Behemoth): I'd like to know just how responsive it really
is. I've played an arcade game that uses sensors to detect movement of
a toy sword. It was fun to swing the sword around and jab stuff, but
the translation from movement to screen wasn't as precise as I would
have liked. What I want to know is, will the Revolution let me chop off
someone's hand, carve my initials into their chest then poke out their
eyes? That's the kind of precision I'm looking for.

Randy Pitchford (Gearbox): I think the analog "aiming" of the
controller is really neat. The idea that we can have full, rich gaming
experiences that we can interface with one hand is really exciting to
me --


I think this is going to be an issue later for people that get really
comfortable with this kind of interface but want the kinds of
experiences that are on two handed platforms.

Karthik Bala (Vicarious Visions): Much like the DS, I think people are
underestimating what the system is capable of.

Eric Holmes (Radical): I'd like to know more about the software. When
the announcement came out there was a whole lot of buzz about what
could be done with the controller, but I have yet to see some video or
feature doing the internet rounds in the same way that the PS3's E3
"Killzone" movie did. There's a lot of talk about what you could
do...how about showing an amazing game running that is an absolute
must-have-must-play-must-get-on-day-one system seller? I think if you
showed what is being done with the unit it would make the potential of
the controller clear.

Chris Charla (Foundation 9): The ability to attach other elements, such
as the classic controller to it. So, a lot of the questions about "is
it a gimmick," etc, just don't fly for that reason. You can always just
require a GameCube controller for your game.

1UP: Do you have any advice for Nintendo and their approach with
Revolution?

Tom Fulp (The Behemoth): I think they are already keeping an open mind
and holding the door open for new ideas, so that is great. It could
definitely benefit Nintendo to establish the Revolution as something
that doesn't compete with the Xbox 360 and PS3, but is rather in a
realm of its own and a required purchase for every gamer because the
experience is that unique. If that doesn't work, they could always
market the vibrating control stick as a massage wand.

Randy Pitchford (Gearbox): Yes -- hurry up!

Karthik Bala (Vicarious Visions): I think Nintendo needs to build up a
strong library of very creative and highly rated titles as quickly as
possible for the platform. We all know that [Nintendo] will produce one
or two killer titles at or near launch for the system. But it's a
strong third-party portfolio that will be the key to success.



I believe Nintendo is well aware of this and it will be interesting to
see how the launch lineup unfolds for Revolution.

Geremy Mustard (Chair): Make sure classic NES titles are available at
the 99 cent sweet spot.

Chris Charla (Foundation 9): More gold panning games!

Eric Holmes (Radical): I would have preferred it if Nintendo had
perhaps talked to more of the third party developers to get feedback on
the controller from us, but I think it's all conducted internally.

I keep reading about how they're chasing a new audience, people who are
"afraid" to pick up the existing controller as it stands. Are existing
controller designs really a problem for people to pick up and play? I
guess Nintendo thinks so. I don't know exactly who they're talking
about -- maybe non-gamers in a shared house, girlfriends or family
members who don't play games...? I don't think it can be kids, because
kids seem to be utterly fearless when it comes to trying things out.

Is the controller what makes people buy a console in the first place? I
think they spend more of the time looking at the packaging, the logo or
the console design itself. When was the last time you even saw a
controller in a TV ad for a game? It feels like they're pushing for a
new market, maybe for people who live in the house where there is
already a games console, but who don't currently play games? I'd guess
that the controller might solve that problem, but is that the key
problem to be solving? Is that really what they should be focusing on?
Looking at the strategy both as a third-party developer and a hardcore
gamer it seems like an off-the-wall concept.

Nintendo has made a surprising move. As a gamer, I'm keen to get my
hands on one and see what happens when the games start flowing. They
will be different; that's about all we can be sure of.

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=5&cId=3145949