So here's my weekly Revolution thread.. (I didn't write this but I am contracted to make one rev thread a week 
)
http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3145837&did=1
)http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3145837&did=1
by Matt Leone 11.23.2005 said:Tech demo -- those are the two words we hear most often when people start talking about games for Nintendo's upcoming Revolution console. Sure, Nintendo has officially announced Metroid Prime 3 and a new Smash Bros., but the only "games" that have been shown are a series of tech demos, and even those were only shown behind closed doors to select press at the Tokyo Game Show.
Well, we're sick of waiting, so we came up with a list of hypothetical Revolution game concepts -- some pulled directly from Nintendo's Tokyo Game Show video that showed actors but no real games, others pulled from some of the popular ideas we've heard floating around -- and took them to impartial third-party developers to find out how practical it is for games on Revolution to be more than just gimmicks.
Over the next five pages, we talk with developers from Harmonix, Radical Entertainment, Foundation 9, Atlus, and Midway to figure out how many of these hypothetical game ideas that are floating around have the potential to become actual games, and what advantages/problems might come with that as a result of the Revolution's remote control-shaped, motion sensor controller. First up, Harmonix co-founder, president and CEO, Alex Rigopulos.
The Concept - Conducting Music
In one of the Revolution clips shown in the video where they debuted the controller at the Tokyo Game Show, a man and woman are shown playing the role of a conductor and using the remote controller as their baton, so for this idea we're looking at a music game with the player playing the role of an orchestra conductor instead of a guitar player, keyboard, player, disc jockey, etc. like we've seen in past music games. The timing of the player's movements would have to correspond with what's happening on the screen for them to succeed.
Could It Really Work?
1UP: First off, do you think a game like this would work well? What do you think would be some of the design problems teams would come across if they were to make a game like this?
Alex Rigopulos: Well, the easy game to design here would be a straightforward "follow the bouncing ball" type of game, whereby a visual interface shows the player the stroke patterns he must replicate to conduct correctly. It's possible that this simplest of designs would be quite enjoyable for classical music fans. And actually the game designer could have a lot of fun with what happens when the player isn't conducting correctly, e.g. different instrument sections drifting out of time with each other and whatnot.
That said, I have to wonder whether this approach to the game design somewhat misses the point of conducting. Conducting isn't about "following;" it's about leading, and about interpretation, all of which would be lost in a simple "follow the bouncing ball" type of game. So, if I were to create this game, I would probably also want to create a kind of freestyle mode which isn't simply about conducting "correctly," but rather conducting in whatever manner the player sees fit, controlling tempo, dynamics, articulation.
1UP: Going along with that, even if the gameplay turned out well, do you think a game with a concept like this would sell at all in either the U.S. or Japanese market?
AR: Honestly, no. Sadly, the number of people who listen to classical music is rather small, particularly among the console gaming demographic, so I suspect that a conducting game would be destined to be a niche product. I would love to be wrong about that.
1UP: Do you think it might be possible for a game like this to actually be a music creation tool and create music on the fly rather than just having the player follow along with scripted notes? Obviously that would change the game quite a bit...
AR: I do think it's possible. Harmonix actually has a lot of experience is this area. During our first few years, before we started making games, we were making music creativity software. One of our earliest projects was an interactive installation we developed for Disney that used infrared sensors to track the motion of players' hands. We created software that was capable of composing original music in real-time in response to the player's movements. So, for example, as the player's hands rose and fell, the melody line rose and fell; as the player's hands moved more quickly or slowly, the rhythmic activity increased or decreased. On one level it was pretty successful, I think, in that when people first stepped up and started playing with it, it struck them as "magical." But after a few minutes of play, people grew bored with it and moved on. This was perfect for a theme park exhibit, but it's no good for a home entertainment product. Generally speaking, I think most people tire quickly of purely creative activity; they want goals and the feeling of reward that comes with achieving those goals. This is what pushed Harmonix in the direction of games.
1UP: Do you think there are other music games that might be better suited to the Revolution controller than playing a conductor?
AR: Yes, I believe there must be, and several of us at Harmonix are actively thinking about it. We've had a lot of very preliminary ideas, but we're still hunting for "the one"...
The Concept - Spell-casting
Apart from a Star War lightsaber title, a Harry Potter spell-casting game is likely the most popular example we've heard from fans eager to see what can be done with the Revolution controller. Electronic Arts has already tried alternative Harry Potter interfaces using both the EyeToy and DS, but given that you hold the Revolution remote the same way you would hold a magic wand, there's huge potential for a game to finally capture what it's like to cast spells as Harry. "Black and white had a gestural casting system," says Holmes. "I think that concept could easily be taken to the next level with this controller -- etch and gesture the shapes of runes and characters to cast spells while gaming."
Could It Really Work?
1UP: When you picture a mechanic like this, how do you imagine the rest of the game working? Would it be a typical third-person game and then go into a special setup for spell-casting, or would the whole thing revolve around the spell-casting?
Eric Holmes: I think it would be best to view it as a 'layer' which goes on top of an existing game model. If I had free reign, I'd suggest a somewhat conventional third-person action adventure with this as a layer on top. Now, that means it could arguably be implemented on any platform, but I'd think the nice thing about the Revolution is that you could cast a spell as you were maneuvering, dodging, fighting -- rather than stopping and going into some other mode, as you'd almost certainly have to do in the other platforms. It'd also be just so much more visceral to cast with a 'wand' than just flailing an analog stick around.
1UP: One of the problems with this and other Revolution game ideas we've heard floating around is that -- like some EyeToy games -- they seem like great fun for a mini-game or a couple minutes of play, but it might be challenging to turn them into full-length games. Do you think this Harry Potter concept could hold up for a full game, or would that be too gimmicky/would players get too tired?
EH: It'd be hard to make game that's purely based around casting spells and make it compelling for four hours -- you're totally right in that it would suffer from the mini-game syndrome. I think we'll see a lot of novelty value use in the first wave of games, and then people will figure out how to more tightly integrate it into 'complete' games. It's a medium, just like when the Dual Shock first turned up. There were a good few abortive attempts at using one or both sticks when that first came out, and now the majority of games have many good, conventional models to follow for using both sticks for first-person shooters, third-person action games, and so on. I just wish people would learn that using the right stick as a fighting controller doesn't work (Blade 2!).
1UP: The Nintendo DS version of the latest Harry Potter game has a similar (though, granted, far from exact) concept with using the stylus on the screen. What do you think the Revolution controller adds to a concept like this that the DS cannot?
EH: Well, I think the DS is a little problematic in this capacity in that you usually enter "stylus mini-game" mode and the main game shuts down while you play your distraction game. The Revolution can accommodate this sort of thing during conventional play, because the 'wand' is already in your hand, all of the time. You also have more three dimensional play, as it's not just a point on a screen, but some sort of full gestural system that you can control. I'm not exactly sure how the controller provides feedback to the system -- does it send rotation and 3D movement info to the system? I'm thinking yes -- and if it provides those you have a full 3D control system with rotation, plus movement over time to consider...which is really a totally new medium for control.
The analog stick by comparison just has movement in two dimensions (x,y) and I guess you can factor in movement over time, but somehow swinging a sword fast by moving your whole arm is way more visceral than just whapping an analog stick fast over a one-quarter inch space
A Star Wars lightsaber game is easily the most popular idea we've heard floating around for a Revolution game, so we went to Foundation 9 (the new development house formed when Indiana Jones developer The Collective and Death Jr. developer Backbone merged) executive producer -- and avid fencing fan -- Chris Charla to get his take on such a game.
The Concept - Star Wars Lightsabering
Whenever the idea of what game would be a good fit for Revolution comes up, inevitably many people will say it would be great for a Star Wars lightsaber game where players can use their remote controllers as the lightsabers and either face off against each other or the AI. This design seems to have many flaws, since there is no force feedback available for when one lightsaber hits another, but also a lot of potential for replicating some of the most memorable Star Wars scenes in a unique way.
Could It Really Work?
1UP: First off, do you think a game like this would work well? What do you think would be some of the design problems teams would come across if they were to make a game like this?
Chris Charla: I don't necessarily see it working at all with two people fighting each other in front of the same TV. I can't see a situation in which it wouldn't end up with the players just hitting each other with the controllers! Maybe my friends are more violent though... No seriously, I think it would be tough to do on-screen showing both views simultaneously. Online, with both players playing first person, and seeing the other player player's avatar facing them, would work better.
1UP: One of the important things with any action game is getting the feel of the combat down properly. Do you think it would be a challenge to get a proper feel for using a lightsaber with the Revolution controller?
CC: I think the controller can be a good stand-in for a sword -- laser or otherwise. Obviously there is the issue of what happens when your lightsaber on-screen hits something, but your arm doesn't. I think you can communicate this pretty well with rumble -- don't underestimate it -- but then your arm in real life has completed a follow through, but your virtual arm has been blocked. So, the easy way to reconcile that is to have your on-screen arm not react until you can get your real arm back into an appropriate location. This also penalizes you somewhat, and may lead to more strategic play.
I hate to be boring and reference reality, but in real life, sword fighting, or fencing anyway, is a lot more feints and blocking and jabs, and a lot less giant, theatrical swings (which in real life would immediately get you run through). So I think for an actual fencing style game, the problem might not be as bad as for a fantasy lightsaber game where you were trying to look like Luke Skywalker all the time with these giant, pointless slashes. But you could create combos which would be fun. Hasbro did a plug-and-play game using the Xavix tech that was similar to this concept, and you had to do gestures with the sword to execute combos, and that worked pretty well.
1UP: One of the problems with this and other Revolution game ideas we've heard floating around is that they seem like great fun for a mini-game or a couple minutes of play, but it might be challenging to turn them into full-length games. Do you think this concept could hold up for a full game, or would that be too gimmicky/would players get too tired?
CC: Whether the game is too gimmicky is just impossible to say. Compare Dragon's Lair to Parappa. On paper they're nearly identical: watch a TV screen and push a specific button at a pre-set time. In short, they're both basically Simon, but one got dull after ten minutes, and the other one stayed fun forever and spawned an entire new game genre.
I think arm fatigue is easy to pick on, but the bottom line is if a game is fun, you will play it well past the point where it's causing you physical pain. I still have scars on my thumbs from the NES controller that prove that. And I think Guitar Hero and DDR show that gamers are more than willing to actually stand and/or move their feet when the game requires it.
Specifically for this game, it's hard to say. In real sword fighting, a lot of times you lose or screw-up because your arms get tired, so that's actually a "gameplay" element. I'm not really sure if having your arm get tired would be a fun game element in a video game. Against a human it might, because you could trash talk about your opponent's weak arms... against AI, you might get frustrated, or, maybe, it would get you involved in the game in a way deeper way, because the game was testing more than just your mind and your hand-to-eye coordination -- it was actually testing your physical endurance, a la DDR.
But, honestly, tonight, see how long you can hold a TV remote without getting tired. Only the most Mr. Burns-like gamer is going to pass out from having to hold up a remote.
1UP: Is there anything in particular you would want to add to a game like this if you were to design it?
CC: I like fencing, so I'm the wrong guy to ask! I would probably design a game that was all finesse-driven and blocking based, and was super fun for fencing fans, and super dull for everyone else... it's why you can't have someone who practices actual martial arts do a fighting game! But if I had to do something, I would just totally rip off Bushido Blade (which had a first-person mode), with tons of one hit kills and stuff.
As one of the scenes shown in Nintendo's Revolution promotional video featured a dentist, we went to Tomm Hulett, product manager on the DS doctor simulation Trauma Center for Atlus, to see how such a game -- or one a bit more like Trauma Center -- might play out.
The Concept - Playing a Surgeon
We saw a scene in the debut video where Nintendo showed the Revolution controller at the Tokyo Game Show where it appeared as if a dentist was working on a patient by moving the Revolution remote back and forth as a drill/tooth cleaner. So for our hypothetical Revolution surgery game, we're thinking of something that follows Nintendo's approach somewhat and has the player go through a game like Trauma Center on the DS -- fix up patients by using the Revolution controller as your tool.
Could It Really Work?
1UP: First off, do you think a game like this would work well? What do you think would be some of the design problems teams would come across if they were to make a game like this?
Tomm Hulett: I think that'd be an awesome game, and the Revolution would allow the player to do all sorts of things (reach into a medicine cabinet, attach an I.V., etc). For a game like that, it would be difficult to decide how realistic the graphics should look. I mean, it's on your TV -- and TV means realism, right? However, part of the charm of Trauma Center was the anime-style characters that sort of softened the intensity of surgery. So, would a Revolution surgery game be hyper realistic or more animated? If the game was too realistic, I think it would face the difficulty of scaring the hell out of your mom when she walked in the room.
1UP: The person in Nintendo's video was shown getting so tired that he had to lean back and take a deep breath because of the amount of focus required. Do you think something like this might make the game too intense, given that the player would be sitting upright and moving around in very specific places over the course of the game? Or might that add to the game's appeal?
TH: Personally, I believe that would add to the game's appeal. Surgery is supposed to be tense and mentally/physically demanding. So, if the game generated that same feeling of urgency and fatigue, it could only add to the realism. That was one of the first qualities that attracted me to Trauma Center, actually. When we were kids, we took games a lot more seriously, and I remember my heart pounding through my chest when I reached the final level or was about to enter a boss chamber. It's rare to get that "worked up" during the course of a game nowadays, but for some reason the concept of surgery does it.
And, I'm talking about how stressful Trauma Center could be, and that's just on the DS. On the Revolution it would be another story entirely. Your parents or friends might walk in and add to your stress because now there are other people in the room. If you screw up, they'll notice -- they might even know what you're supposed to be doing! Could you imagine a game like this with online play for multiple doctors? You make a mistake there, and three people across the country could get angry at you.
1UP: What do you think the Revolution controller could add to a game like this that couldn't be done on the DS?
TH: The main thing the Revolution would add isn't even due to the controller. On the DS, you're able to play the game anywhere -- at school, in the car (as a passenger), on a plane -- which in some cases detracts from the feeling of actually being a doctor. It's hard to concentrate on Mr. Jacob's tumor when the redhead from history class is on her cell phone one bench over. The Revolution, being a console, confines you to a room in your house where you can make an environment conducive to surgery (I would recommend creating a sterilized "clean room" in which to play).
Things the controller would add, though, are a lot more opportunities to be a doctor outside of surgery. There could be clinical situations where you're diagnosing a broken leg or a mysterious cough... Having a range of 3D motion, it would allow you to direct a light down a patient's throat or clean teeth like the demo movie easier than the DS would (as that is only 2D). You could run CAT scans and the like where the patient is in another room and you're interacting with various medical equipment. Or, maybe you could just go to lunch and choose which food to eat (if you're going for simulation, you might as well include the details). Watch out -- the tuna sandwich decreases your breath stat...which will affect how comfortable the patient is talking to you.
1UP: Conversely, is there anything about Trauma Center that you think works better on the DS than a game like this would on Revolution?
TH: Actually, I think the surgeries themselves work far better on the DS than they would on the Revolution. The reason is simple: a stylus feels a LOT more like a scalpel than a big plastic remote control does. On the DS screen you're actually "touching the patient" whereas on a television set you're simply pointing at the patient. Which isn't to say that surgery would be "bad" using the Revolution controller; I just think it would be odd to move from a seemingly ideal control scheme on the DS to one a little less functional. Now, if there was going to be a licensed game for some medical drama, I'd say the Revolution would be the way to go (House M.D.: The Game? Count me in).
What I think would be really cool is establishing some kind of connectivity between the Revolution and the DS. We all joked about Nintendo's GBA to GC connectivity being somewhat "last millennium," but now that we have the DS and Revolution, I would almost say they jumped the gun a little bit. Imagine a Doctor game where you would move around and diagnose patients with the Revolution controller on your TV. Perform tests to pinpoint the troubled area. Then you schedule a surgery and move down to your DS. The bottom screen is the patient, just like Trauma Center. Your nurse speaks to you on the top screen (along with a voice from the television), while glancing up to your TV (the monitor, wink wink) would let you read the patient's biorhythms and other important information. Or, the readings could be on the DS and an animated surgical staff could occupy the TV. Heck, you could use the touch screen to direct a tiny camera and then watch it move through the body on your television.
A connectivity concept of some kind would really make anything possible on the Revolution and DS -- because it turns your game room into an O.R., literally! We talked about how stressful this game might be earlier -- imagine your brother walking in during an especially tense heart surgery: "Hey dude, I was just wondering if I could play some Xbox Li--." "Why do you always barge in!? I just dropped my scalpel into this guy's heart! What the hell!? I'm operating; you can't just interrupt me like that!"
You want the future of gaming? That, my friends, is it.
With the concept of physics taking off in games, a lot of developers have experimented with ways to use it as a gameplay mechanic, such as using powers like telekinesis, so we talked with Midway's Bryan Eddy and Alex Offerman -- who worked together on Psi-Ops and are currently working on next-gen action game Stranglehold -- about what could be done with telekinesis on Revolution.
The Concept - Using Telekinesis
In Psi-Ops, we saw one of the best uses of telekinesis yet as a game mechanic, but many developers have struggled to find a way to make telekinesis as fun as it can be in a game. For this concept on Revolution, we're thinking of an action game like Psi-Ops, but where players can use telekinesis in a much more open-ended way by flipping the Revolution remote controller over their shoulder, off to the side, etc. Unlike the analog stick, the Revolution controller allows a lot of freedom of movement for players to fling objects around with accurate speeds, directions, etc. so the game would take advantage of that as much as possible.
Could It Really Work?
1UP: First off, do you think a game like this would work well? What do you think would be some of the design problems teams would come across if they were to make a game like this?
Bryan Eddy: Yes, a game like that using similar mechanics to Psi-Ops would work great. We actually experimented with something similar using a mouse for directional throws. You would pick up an object then push the mouse in the direction you wanted to throw it and the game would match the direction and speed you threw it in. The problems we ran into were that mice vary wildly in their construction are not always accurate when moved quickly, like when doing a throwing motion. Mice are also limited to a flat 2D plane only. However with the Revolution controller, you could not only insure the accuracy lacking with most mice but could also add in up and down, as well as rolls in any direction. That would give you unparallel control over objects with telekinesis, and give the designers the opportunity to come up with new and original puzzles, gameplay elements and missions. In terms of design problems, I imagine that designers would run into many of the same challenges as we did on Psi-Ops. Designing missions when players can move anything anywhere is difficult. For instance, in Psi-Ops you could climb on an object, pick it up with Telekinesis and surf it almost anywhere. Imagine having that ability in most third-person action adventure games. Normal puzzles like having to find a switch to extend a bridge don't work in a game where you can do that.
1UP: One of the tricky parts about making a game on Revolution seems to be that it will be a challenge to mix the freedom of movement of the controller with traditional third-person movement controls, since traditional camera controls would take up the remote's movement functionality. Do you think it would make sense to use the "nunchaku" attachment for traditional movement and the Revolution controller just for your special attacks/abilities, or would it make more sense to start from scratch and try an entirely new approach to the controls?
BE: I think we would have to experiment with multiple control schemes. We would probably want to have one in which the player used the "nunchaku" for traditional movement and the Revolution controller for attacks and special abilities, as well as for camera control. Then we would also want to start from scratch and see if there were any new and innovative ways to use the Revolution's controllers within new control schemes to make the game more fun to play. Different players prefer different control schemes and a good game will always offer as many as possible to satisfy as many as possible.
1UP: Given what you learned making Psi-Ops, what kinds of elements are crucial to include in the game to make telekinesis work well, both in the game itself and the control scheme?
Alex Offerman: We went through many iterations on our controls for Telekinesis in Psi-Ops until we found one that was simple, intuitive to use and worked well with the rest of the game's controls. A lot of the tweaking involved not just the obvious controls of lifting and throwing of objects, but also more subtle ones involving the camera and various HUD elements. For instance, early on targeting for telekinesis and regular weapons were two separate controls, but we eventually realized that combining them into one system that used the same targeting reticule was much easier for the player to use. The next most important thing for telekinesis to feel right was to have very good game physics. We integrated the Havok physics engine into the game so that when objects or people where thrown, they would look and feel right.
1UP: Were there any ideas discarded from Psi-Ops during development that you think would work well in a game like this?
AO: Of course, but they are top secret!
