The Wii U Controller and Gamers' Resistance to Change

Nintendo's Wii U controller has been a hot topic of discussion ever since it was officially revealed by Nintendo last year. Some people love it while other scream for murder at the idea of including a touch screen in a home controller. So who's right here? Is Nintendo leading the way for future controllers or are they banking on a gimmick to spark sales?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
sinncross2336d ago

I do not think it is a matter of gamer's being resistant to change... rather that many do not see the point in the inclusion of a touchscreen on the controller, which is effectively making the controller bigger.

The truth of the matter is that everything which sounds good about the touchscreen merely sounds good in theory. I am sure more gamers will be open to the controller when Nintendo properly unveils its usage in the titles it (and 3rd parties) has coming.

But until then, you cannot blame some gamers for being sceptical: it is not like the normal controller do not do their job as is.

dark-hollow2336d ago (Edited 2336d ago )

people where also doubting the DS double screens but the system turned out one of the best handhelds of all time both in sales and in games library.

while i admit its not necessarily the dual screens were the major reason it was successful, its all about the games.

mike1up2336d ago

Excellent point.

I am sure that some people may have been skeptical of the analog stick as well.

ShinMaster2336d ago (Edited 2336d ago )

A touchscreen on a handheld is different than a touchscreen on a controller on a home console.

On a handheld, the touchscreen IS the gameplay screen.
On the Wii U, the touchscreen is not the main gameplay screen. Your TV is. Having to look down at the controller back and forth for mini-games and other unnecessary tasks that you could just as easily do with controls is not everyone's thing.

One of the only examples I've seen is the new Rayman game and its use wasn't the most impressive or cool at all.

It's not that gamers don't welcome change or innovation, it's just that incorporating an almost tablet-sized (single-touch)screen on a controller isn't change or innovation, it only makes the controller bigger, as stated before, and gets in the way of seamless gameplay in exchange for some sort of hybrid... thing.

ChickeyCantor2335d ago (Edited 2335d ago )

" it only makes the controller bigger, as stated before, and gets in the way of seamless gameplay"

I really don't get how it's not "seamless".
Since input handlers are most likely off put to the touchscreen. The accessibility of "menu" items, inventories, etc. Are available real time rather than with an extra step that forces you to break out of your gameplay.

Furthermore, it's a touchscreen. This means it can give us intuitive interfaces which a normal controller can't give us. On top of that the kind of layout can be anything.
Yes it's not hard to scroll trough a menu with your analog or d-pad. And then hit a button to confirm your selection. But isn't it faster and far more intuitive by tapping the item you need?
So I really don't see how it's counter-productive.
The DS and many tablet apps have shown how well toucscreens work. But all I read here are assumptions of how things don't work.

Now if EA is kind, they should totally port most C&C games to Wii-u. Tablet seems perfect for it.

miyamoto2335d ago (Edited 2335d ago )

It may work on the DS because your field of vision can see the two little screen.

And the purpose of the touch screen is for games using touch mechanics or a bigger map display etc. That is two types of games in one machine.
In a big HD screen all this can be fit in one screen.

Not attacking Nintendo nor its fans but...

This Wii U controller reminds me of the Sega Dreamcast controller with the VMU LCD screen, a first by Sega.

But the need to look back and forth at two screens while playing RE Code Veronica or Quake III was very disorienting & ruins the experience & should not be mandatory.

I know Nintendo is gunning for the PS360 gamers but playing an FPS on that little screen while sitting on the toilet is not a very good value proposition by this Wii U controller.

Edit: And may I add after the fad has come & gone everyone is back to their traditional controller configuration like this Wii U.

ChickeyCantor2335d ago (Edited 2335d ago )

"This Wii U controller reminds me of the Sega Dreamcast controller with the VMU LCD screen, a first by Sega. "

But how is that even relevant?
The display sega had is hardly anything near what the u-tablet is.

Sure it outputted some data, during gameplay, but that's kinda it? No interaction. No second render buffer of the actual game.

"I know Nintendo is gunning for the PS360 gamers but playing an FPS on that little screen while sitting on the toilet is not a very good value proposition by this Wii U controller.

The fact you are able to continue your play while you are on the toilet is something to be happy about. You pretend you would drag your tv to the toilet... As if that's the norm.
Did you even think this argument trough?

"Edit: And may I add after the fad has come & gone everyone is back to their traditional controller configuration like this Wii U."

If you want it to fail, sure. We get it. You're not a fan of it ( and I can't really say I think it's good since I havn't used it, obviously ) but all this negativity is just going nowhere.
People are skeptical by nature, but wtf is up with all the gloom and doom ?

ShinMaster2334d ago (Edited 2334d ago )

You're missing the point.
The Wii U controller is out of your field of vision.
This isn't like the DS which WAS seamless and intuitive.
With the Wii U, you have your eyes on the TV screen but then have to stop and look down at what you're doing on the controller for some gimmick. Something you'd never do with any other gaming system because it breaks the flow.

Maybe if you're new to gaming and you're just learning the buttons, then it's understandable for someone to look down at the controller. However, no experienced gamer ever looks down at the controller while playing and we should be forced to.

I explained the rest already in my previous comment.

Bahimas2334d ago (Edited 2334d ago )

ShinMaster, how far are you having to look down? Doesn't seem that bothersome to me. Honestly, it may just be the way I play or have my arms positioned, but my controllers are well within my field of view. Not exactly in focus, but easily able to see what i'm doing.

I would imagine, unless it's a mini-game or some puzzle, it would just take a quick glance to see what is needed and continue looking at the tv. I guess if someone plays with the controller super close to their body it might be difficult.

I do understand the potential issue, don't get me wrong, especially if real-time gameplay is on both screens at once. But I also do know many expert gamers that still look at the controller. It might be habit or something, but it obviously doesn't hinder them from enjoying the game.

All we can really do is try it for ourselves, whether a demo kiosk, a friend's, or owning one. My thoughts are all assuming that the tv is a little above eye level when sitting, looking up somewhat. I have a low couch :P so yeah, that's where I'm coming from

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2334d ago
_Aarix_2335d ago

Thats because were so used to not using a touch screen. I can see all the health bars or inventory viewable on it or card games would be amazing. There are many talented developers that will implement gameplay into it seamlessly

isntchrisl2336d ago

Well, I will agree that Nintendo did not show a plethora of examples last year in ways it could be utilized. However, there are a lot of fairly obvious ways to utilize the controller and at the very least, make modern gaming more streamlined.

I don't want to put anyone who doesn't like the controller in one specific category. Some are resistant to change or are put off by the size. Some might just dislike Nintendo. Some are taking a wait and see approach, which is fair.

I do think a lot of gamers are very short-sighted on this topic though. Just the current growth of tablets alone should prove this. I remember a similar response when the DS was revealed. People didn't see the need for two screens. Now we are seeing other devices make use of similar ideas. I expect the same to occur with the Wii U.

stragomccloud2336d ago

Very resistant to change.
There's no need to change the way we do things in 'Merica. 'Cause this is 'Merica! There aint nothing better that what we have! And if it aint broken don't fix it! Don't ever change or improve nuthin' not ever!(Spoken in a Texan accent)

This is the voice I imagine when I think of how so many gamers don't like to give anything new a chance. Heck people made fun of the NES in '85 because the thing had a D-Pad. That was new and strange back then!

Hicken2336d ago

Gamers are resistant to change that doesn't look like it'll be an improvement over how things already are. ShinMaster and sinncross both bring up very good reasons as to why gamers may not be receptive to the Wii U controller, or gaming changes, in general.

Granted, there are some people who just don't like things to change. But whenever there's a complaint or a certain level of skepticism, the generalized excuse is that ALL gamers simply don't want change.

It's no different from how all the legitimate complaints about CoD turn into "It's cool to hate whatever's popular." Or people disliking Mass Effect's ending all being "entitled, whiny brats."

This is another example of such generalization. It's lazy journalism, and pretty pathetic in general.

isntchrisl2336d ago

It doesn't sound like you read the article. Nowhere does it state that ALL gamers are resistant to change.

It does, of course, focus on the outspoken group of gamers that vocalize their dislike for the new controller... because that's what the article is about. That's like reading a CNN headline that says "Atheists protest Nativity Scene" and assuming the writer is speaking about ALL atheists. It doesn't make sense.

Hicken2335d ago

The article itself directly implies that the only people left still complaining are doing so only because it's different.

"So that's it, no more issues right? The Wii U includes everything 360/PS3 gamers enjoy with the addition of a large touch screen in the middle. No, actually. The Wii U still has its fair share of gamers that "just want a normal controller."

Analog sticks are in, so what's causing so much backlash over the Wii U controller? The answer is simply that it is different. It's not what gamers are used to."

At no point does the article even hint at valid gripes. Maybe the "it's bigger" one, which is still disqualified by the mention of "hands-on feedback." So? Hands-on feedback from a lot of people say the 360 controller is better than the DualShock. Not for me, though. Why would or should this automatically be any different?

There's no "to be fair" or anything like that in the article. From start to finish, it's implied if not outright stated that anyone who doesn't like the controller- now that the analog sticks are there- just doesn't want something new.

I get so annoyed when so-called "writers" say things like " Nowhere does it state" when the tone of the article heavily implies the unstated. As if that somehow excuses the writing from lacking an objective view, and thus being little more than a loaded question.

stragomccloud2335d ago

You say that, but most gamers have already made up there mind about something before they have even tried it. Too many gamers say they'll try something, but in the back of their mind, they have already made their decision so they won't like it.

Any gamer that actually played the some of the Wii games that /actually/ used motion control can tell you this. However, most hated on it simply because it wasn't a traditional control scheme, and claimed that traditional contrls would have been better for games like Metroid Prime 3, or Zelda Skyward Sword, or Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. Anyone who actually gave that new type of input a real chance as a tabla rasa(blank slate), can atest to this.

"If you immediately know the candlelight is fire. Then the meal was cooked a long time ago."

brettyd2336d ago

I'm just going to say this, touch/motion controlls add literally NOTHING to gaming. Stop trying to invent different ways of controlling/interacting with games and inovate with story telling and make new games. Naughty Dog seem to be the only ones who get this.

isntchrisl2336d ago

This is very small-minded thinking. If nobody tried anything new, console gaming as you know it would not be the same as it is today.

There's no reason you can't improve the way you interact with games while improving the storytelling aspect of them. Having one does not mean sacrificing the other.

stragomccloud2335d ago

Well said. Bubbles for you good sir.

linkratos2335d ago

The only thing Naughty Dog innovates is presentation, which in reality isn't innovation, just emulating movies. While I don't dislike the Uncharted games themselves, I hate that people think they are innovative and want all games to go that direction. So you think removing player agency and making games more like disposable action movies is a better improvement than exploring new ways to interact with an interactive medium?

yabhero2335d ago

U must be trolling or I will have to smack you in the face with my copy of Skyward Sword. The best would be of we invented new ways of playing and advanced storytelling

stragomccloud2334d ago

I really can't imagine going back after Skyward Sword. Wow.

yewles12336d ago

"Resistance to Change"


Show all comments (29)