DS -Touched too much?

[Alienblue]

First, before I get any hate responses, try to remember I LOVE the DS as much if not MORE than any other system. I WANT to see it succeed.

That said, does anyone else feel that the "Big N" is relying wayyyy too much on the touch screen now for games? Some games like Zookeeper and Polarium are super-fun using the touch screen (as well as Kirbys canvas curse and Wario:touched!); but I find games like regular platformers and shooters to be more fun WITHOUT the stylus. Wario: master of disguise would be an above average game if not for the flaky touch controls they threw in. Do they HAVE to "TOUCH" EVERY game? Even in New Super Mario Bros., ALMOST touch free, you stil had touch mini games and had to touch to get your reserve item (you COULD have pressed a button just as easily!)...is Nintendo a bit "touched" here?...

[Steerforth]

You will get a lot of 'hate' for this Alien, but I agree with you. Nintendo goes out of there way to incoporate touching, if it makes any sense or not, and prssures 3rd parties to do the same. In a perfect world, the stylus would never be used if a button could do it better and easier. In the early days of the DS, they felt they had to force feed the issue to make the DS catch on, now that it has, I wish they would back off a bit, and let the gameplay decide. The Wimote is in a parallel position, to the same effect.

The stylus is only a gimic if the software makes it one, and too often it does. The strength of the DS is in games that use the touch screen very well, with games that can't be imitated well on another system, Brain Age, Trauma Center, Nintendogs, Hotel Dusk, etc.

Also noteworthy is how the Zelda franchise is drying up in Japan. This is why Phantom Hourglass is going to be all touchscreen. I have an open mind about this game because it is being built from the ground up, touch based, not a tack on or hybrid approach.

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=Alienblue]That said, does anyone else feel that the "Big N" is relying wayyyy too much on the touch screen now for games? Some games like Zookeeper and Polarium are super-fun using the touch screen (as well as Kirbys canvas curse and Wario:touched!); but I find games like regular platformers and shooters to be more fun WITHOUT the stylus. Wario: master of disguise would be an above average game if not for the flaky touch controls they threw in. Do they HAVE to "TOUCH" EVERY game? Even in New Super Mario Bros., ALMOST touch free, you stil had touch mini games and had to touch to get your reserve item (you COULD have pressed a button just as easily!)...is Nintendo a bit "touched" here?...[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to throw any hate your way.  But it seems like I hear the exact opposite problem expressed on other forums, though mostly by Nintendo-haters wanting to declare the DS a failure to downplay the touch controls.

I think certain new types of games can obviously use the new control scheme to great advantage.  I can't imagine games like Elite Beat Agents, Trauma Center: Under the Knife, Nintendogs, or Cooking Mama without the touchscreen controls.  It is also really good for games that traditionally used a mouse and didn't make a good transition on their way to consoles, such as point-and-click adventure games, or games that once used a light gun but can't on a handheld.  On the other hand, I think Nintendo ought to keep touchscreen controls to a minimum on games that don't require it.  Not every game is suitable to a new control scheme.  There might be some peripheral uses for it that definitely add some minimum value, for instance New Super Mario Bros. (especially if it allowed you to store up more than one power-up), but it shouldn't be a lock-in for every single game if the utility isn't as good as what can be done already using touchscreen controls.

[JustLikeHeaven1]

I haven't noticed this problem too much, but I have stayed away from games that got average reviews because of too much touch.

My favorite part about the system is the dual screens.  After playing something like Castlevania DoS, its hard to not have a map constantly telling you where you are.  Its also great for showing your inventory and things like that.

Touch controls work, but so do traditional controls.  I like one or the other and most games can't seem to find the delicate balance between the two.

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]My favorite part about the system is the dual screens.  After playing something like Castlevania DoS, its hard to not have a map constantly telling you where you are.  Its also great for showing your inventory and things like that.

Touch controls work, but so do traditional controls.  I like one or the other and most games can't seem to find the delicate balance between the two.[/QUOTE]

My favorite part of the system is definitely the touchscreen.  The reason for this is that it really does fascilitate a new type of gaming experience *when* the game is suited to such a new experience.  Like I said, I wouldn't have had anywhere near as much fun with the games I listed in my post if they had had some other kind of truly inappropriate control scheme placed on them.

Having said that, I agree with you about the dual screen for traditionally controlled games.  I remember when I played Resident Evil: Deadly Silence on it.  Even though the screen was too small for it really, I have to admit having that map up there 100% of the time made the game flow so much better.  The dual screen is one of the better ideas for games with any sort of complexity at all.  Personally, I think any 2D Metroid or Castlevania game would benefit from the map on the top or bottom screen like that.

[Paul Campbell]

I have no problem with lots of games employing the touchscreen, but I agree with whoever it was up there that said it sucks to use the touchscreen when a button would work just as well.  That said, I personally prefer that they release mostly touch-based games, because when I want a classic style game I am happy to look to the GBA library for my fix.  I am just getting into the GBA stuff and am realizing that it has one of the best libraries out there.

[JustLikeHeaven1]

Whoops...I didn't mean to say that the dual screens were the best thing about the system.  I meant to say that they are ONE OF THE BEST THINGS about the system.  The dual screen never gets as much attention as the touch control and I think it does make the "flow" of games much better. 

The touch control in games like Trauma Center and Feel the Magic is top notch.  I think its good that games like Final Fantasy III and New Super Mario Bros, pretty much stick with regular controls. 

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]The touch control in games like Trauma Center and Feel the Magic is top notch.  I think its good that games like Final Fantasy III and New Super Mario Bros, pretty much stick with regular controls.[/QUOTE]

Ironically enough, what bothers me about Final Fantasy III isn't a lack of touchscreen controls, but rather the lack of use of the dual screens.  For a very considerable percentage of the time you play that game, the top screen is effectively unused.  In the overworld you see the map, and that's helpful.  But in dungeons, it's blank.

[a1]

I think the touch screen is a great idea. It's hard to fit a lot of buttons on a handheld, and the touch screen alleviates this problem by allowing basically an infinite amount of buttons. I also like having maps and menu screens on the touch screen. That being said I agree with you completely. I'd rather press a button to jump than tap twice on the screen. I think the screen is great, but a lot of the touch functions developers throw in are pointless and annoying.