On Kinect and PlayStation Move

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

jak1165:
I know for the most part that even hinting at support for the Wii normally results in shunning, but it seems that Yahtzee hasn't yet grasped the primary reason why the Wii has so thoroughly dominated this round in the console battle. Its not that it solely appeals to Mom, Dad, and Grandma, nor is it the "arm-flailing controls". Its the fact that four people can sit down in one room and *SHOCK* socialize with people face to face AND PLAY A GAME AT THE SAME TIME *GASP*. Whether its Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Wii Sports, Guitar Hero, or WarioWare(lol), people can still play games with other people without getting called a fag by some kiddie on a headset when you kill them

I personally love the Wii for this reason. Having a bunch of people in a room together playing a game is great. Maybe I believe that socializing with real people is better than playing with random people on the internet (I realize that complaining about it on an internet forum is counterproductive but I feel the need to rant and that's what the internet is for).
That being said I wish more games would allow multiple people to play on the same console. Castle Crashers was a fun group activity and bomberman for the PS3 allowed up to 7 players(never did more than 4 for lack of controllers)
The thing I liked the most on the 360 this year is that Gears of War 3 is going to allow 4 player story mode. I really hope that means 4 player split screen but I don't know yet.

I think adding motion controls to the 360 and PS3 is really missing the mark. Why would someone spend $150 to add motion controls to a system when you could just buy a Wii for $200 and have a plethora of games already available.

ColdStorage:

Because he's British, Americans have difficulty telling two brits apart, to the point that even our own Irridium can't tell the difference between Cockneys and Scousers.

I seem to recall Movie Bob (I think) thinking it was an Australian accent. That's just going to far :)

That said, giving the robot an actual Aussie accent would be awesome, especially if they get the idiom right ie. good natured abuse.

"Thought -> in game action" is a novel thought but not really useful in practice.

You can't just think "o, see that guy, shoot him in the face." That takes the reality of reality out of video games. There is human error in real life because our bodies cannot do exactly what our brain wants it to do. People practice sports or shooting or anything else to refine our bodies down to doing almost what our brains want.

Yahtzee is way off here. Yes these motion controllers are gimmicky but they are probably moving us in the right direction. Full immersion isn't "thought -> action" but "thought -> movement -> action" (with movement -> action happening simultaneously).

I understand what Yathzee is trying to say but its not realistic. Whats the fun in a FPS where u place bullets exactly where u want 100% of the time? There's no human error. If motion controls progress at a good pace then in a few years we might have a legitimately awesome device.

3D in movies now is pretty shitty. Same as motion controls in games. But think if in the future you are actually surrounded by the movie and can turn your head and see things behind you. That would be amazing. Same thing as motion controls if they progress...

I still don't see how 3D is a gimmick. For some reason, it feels like people can only think of 3D as those red-and-blue glasses things you could see on TV, where they would make one long object (like a sub sandwich or a wrench) pop out of the screen. Woo! It pops out of the screen! Excitement! No, that's bullshit and I don't care for it.

I'm thinking of a moment when a kid handed me his DS to beat a level in Super Mario 64 DS for him. I was gallantly leaping platform to platform, progressing through the level at a good pace, when all of a sudden Mario disappeared behind a platform I had leapt to. When I did that massive horizontal leap to that platform, Mario happened to be at just the right angle so that he was JUST behind the platform when it came time to land on it, sending him screaming into the abyss below. With the 3DS, I'd never have to worry about making that sort of mistake again.

I spent a lot of time in Super Mario Galaxy 2 trying to wrestle the camera into the right position so I could see exactly where the next platform was. For platforming games, at the very least, 3D will be a huge help.

Also, 3D just plain looks better. I will concede that it probably isn't some incredible leap forward in gaming, but insinuating that it's in any way a step backward is simply not true unless you consider every graphical upgrade that doesn't have some other practical purpose to be a step backward as well.

Totally agree with the Matrix-vision of the future. I would love for that to happen, though I doubt it will anytime soon, sadly. That would be something of a dream come true. :o

'Only the most determined joy-killers' are pointing out that Move and Kinect aren't the next great step forward for the industry? Well, if that's true, then I must be some kind of remorseless joy assassin.

Disagree however strongly you want, but I don't think the video game industry fell into the major slump it's in because there was some sort of pressing shortage of expensive, low-utility hardware gimmicks. Forgive me if this sounds remarkably fatuous, but might the Big Three find themselves better off if they rejected the idea that video games and their hardware represent some sort of colossal pack mule for expensive and often restrictive new technology, and instead as an entertainment and artistic medium? That perhaps the point of the medium is not to provide a platform for new product but is, itself a product worthy of care, analysis, and appreciation from developer and consumer alike? That the waning interest in the industry and the tough economic climate might prove a terrible time to introduce expensive, low-utility clutter, but a golden opportunity to scale back and develop more simple, less expensive games that focus on the exploration of the medium's utility as a form of art and entertainment?

A common criticism of the industry by people that don't play games is that video games have, so far, at least, not really proven themselves to be anything more than the sum of their hardware and software; that they are, both currently and potentially, much closer to mere toys than a sophisticated medium. What you or I believe on that point is pretty irrelevant, because guess what? The people that make all your games believe it. They believe it because most video game consumers believe it, too. That is where the money has been pretty much since the birth of the industry, and popular and critical acclaim mean relatively little if they don't have any direct connection with that sweet, sweet cashflow.

So remember what I always say: express your opinion with your wallet. If you bitch tirelessly about developers, products, and games but then buy them all anyway, that doesn't really make any sort of difference. If you opt out of financially supporting products you don't like, and that ends up making some sort of difference, good for you. And if it doesn't make any difference at all because only you, me, and a few other cantankerous curmudgeons ever gave a tinker's damn, then maybe the industry just isn't for you in the first place.

While Yahtzee is spot-on about this miserable quest towards virtual reality which the games industry is apparently attempting, I would like to point out that both motion controls and 3D screens have the potential to create games that would not be possible without them:

Motion controls: a space game, like Descent, in which the controls are actually intuitive.
3D screens: the world's first isometric platformer in which aiming your jumps isn't a huge pain in the neck.

1. Does that make RTS games the future of video games? After all, its probably the most immersive type of game if you spend 3 months learning all the controls.

2. If you do go to Valve, try and find where they're keeping the army of Icefrog clones D:

Jedi Sasquatch:
I actually think that a virtual reality sort of world where you 'think' and it happens would be bad for the gaming industry, because then any sort of test of skill would be thrown out the window. You wouldn't have to aim your gun at the enemy, you'd just think "shoot him!" And bam, he'd be dead. There would be no point to competitive shooter games or action games or any games like that. The 'hardcore' gamers would cease to exist, because hardcore gamers are distinguished by their skill in the games they play, and if there's no test of any relevant skill, Q.E.D. no gamers.

Poomanchu745:

Yahtzee is way off here. Yes these motion controllers are gimmicky but they are probably moving us in the right direction. Full immersion isn't "thought -> action" but "thought -> movement -> action" (with movement -> action happening simultaneously).

I understand what Yathzee is trying to say but its not realistic. Whats the fun in a FPS where u place bullets exactly where u want 100% of the time? There's no human error. If motion controls progress at a good pace then in a few years we might have a legitimately awesome device.

Wow. TWO people that completely misunderstood the point.

That's not the point of thought control at all. Nothing in what he said implied that thought control = infallibility. You'll still need to practice your skills, it'll just mean you'll be perfecting actual gameplay skills rather than those involved in wrangling a controller. It'll be just the same as controlling the flesh, except your body will be virtual.

I would have like to have heard more on why the Move is doomed but Kinnect might stand a chance with the gimmick crowd. I would have guessed the opposite. Game controls need to be accurate, reliable, precise, and fast

Reading body movements in a room of variable lighting is a lost cause, and a huge step backward in essentially all of these control needs. But I think the Move has a chance at delivering reliable input. A mouse for some things is better than a joystick, and I think the Move might stand a chance of bringing mouse features to the couch.

You are probably right, but I would have liked to have heard more on that.

Lot's of people (me included) consider the Wii to be to be a PS2 working on Incognito with pretend-to-be next gen gimmicks; however, Nintendo did the right thing releasing the Wii. Although developing it was a tad more expensive than both the PS3 and the XBOX360, it works on cheap hardware, thus making it cheap. When we examine sales records, we can clearly see that the Wii has definitely sold way more in both units and money collected than it's two clearly better competitors. The main reason for this is because CUSTOMERS ARE ALWAYS LOOKING TO BUY COOL LOOKING GADGETS. When people saw Wii ads they thought it was the best idea for a console ever; and it is... at least for the first semester; that's why, four years later, Wii sales started to plummet down, more so than other consoles.

Unlike most game developers, Nintendo is relying entirely on releasing a new, cheap and shortly fun console: The 3Ds. The 3Ds will most likely have the same impact the Wii did, and give Nintendo enough money to stuff their pockets, develop a new gadget and buy that caviar filled Playboy mansion they've always wanted too. Sony and Microsoft didn't think of the long term and decided to rely on the PS3 and XBOX360 respectively, but the truth is they haven't met the money that it cost them to build their consoles from scratch, that's why they're so desperate to make their own motion based controls. They aren't copying Nintendo's original way to provide entertainment, they are copying Nintendo's market idea so they can fulfill their own sick depraved fantasies only money can allow.

Specially Sony. Because they're Asian.

I have to disagree that Move, at the very least, is a step backwards for gaming. That controller can be used as a sort of gyro-mouse, and you can use it to aim with much greater accuracy in a shooter than you would with a regular controller. It will also make it much easier to play RTS games, which are notoriously hard to play with traditional controllers and usually resort to a brute force "select everything" method. Kinect, on the other hand... eh. Kinect might work for an RTS if the developer is clever, but it couldn't possibly work for a shooter. I mean, what, this gesture is for shooting? That gesture is for jumping? Lean forward to run? Yeah, right.

On the other hand, Move may be less likely to work for the gimmick crowd, and that may give Kinect the edge... well, until the "casual" audience sees some other shiny object.

Oh, dammit. They've added a British-voiced smack-talking annoying sidekick. There goes the Portal franchise.

While I think that both Kinect and Move will not sell as well as Microsoft and Sony would want to,I don't think of them as a fail,including 3D.Sure,we're still far far away from the Matrix/Avatar kind of imersive gaming,but the way I see this,those gimmicks are a step towards evolution.Just look at how the controller itself evolved from the Atari era to nowadays modern controllers.
Maybe Kinect and Move (and the Wii)are not the right step towards this evolution.If that's the case,at least in the future people will avoid this kind of thing and (hopefully) create something better = more immersive/intuitive.Although I really have a hard time thinking how could someone inprove what's already fine.

Like what you're saying Yahtzee. But what about Kinect being able to read facial expressions and stuff. I mean for RPGs that could really, really add to the who roleplaying thing... if it works...

I think that there's a lot of potential for some amazing things to done with the technology if any game developers really try to do something innovative with it... Which most all of them won't I guess.

It's too late to try and market the 360 or the PS3 as a casual gamers device. Nobody's gonna see them that way and the casual gamer's still gonna go for the Wii I think.

Yahtzee, I think you've fallen too in love with the concept of immersion in games and are now stressing its importance even more so than actual gameplay.

When you strip a game of all its graphics and story to its pure essence, you end up with games like chess or soccer. However, these games are still immersive because you can play these for long periods of time and not even notice yet they're nothing more than an objective with a procedure and set of rules. People will try to complete these objectives games give them because the gameplay is fun and challenging. When you watch a movie, you can be immersed but not because you feel like your in the world the characters are in but because you want to know what happens next.

The truth of immersion is it's not the virtual reality you're thinking of but the result of good gameplay and storytelling. While the virtual reality is an admirable goal, you're not immersed if you're bored and want to do something else. Immersion is not feeling like you hit someone when you swing the wii remote in wii boxing. If it's fun to play, you are immersed and wii boxing is fun to play for many.

Arcanist:

jak1165:
I know for the most part that even hinting at support for the Wii normally results in shunning, but it seems that Yahtzee hasn't yet grasped the primary reason why the Wii has so thoroughly dominated this round in the console battle. Its not that it solely appeals to Mom, Dad, and Grandma, nor is it the "arm-flailing controls". Its the fact that four people can sit down in one room and *SHOCK* socialize with people face to face AND PLAY A GAME AT THE SAME TIME *GASP*. Whether its Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Wii Sports, Guitar Hero, or WarioWare(lol), people can still play games with other people without getting called a fag by some kiddie on a headset when you kill them

You can do that with other consoles, you know. It's not like they have an implant that shocks you whenever you plug in another controller(Well, the PS3 does, but it's Sony. What did you expect?).

I have a pretty extensive 360 library of games and the only games I own that can support local co-op/competive gameplay are Castle Crashers and Halo

Someone might have mentioned this already, but it seems to me the biggest problem facing this kind of immersion gaming isn't the controls so much as the medium. No matter how fancy your graphics and motion controls are, the experience is still restricted by the flat surface on which it's presented.

I remember playing Halo for the first time when I was thirteen. I was from a pretty poor family, so I didn't have much experience with xbox controls or first-person shooters in general. I remember getting frustrated during deathmatches because I'd pull back on the thumbstick to look up and instinctively crane my neck back at the same time. Of course I looked stupid and my friends teased me about it, but that's exactly the kind of intuitive response these projects are supposed to be harnessing.

No amount of pew-pew gestures with your hands will make up for the fact that when you look to your left for the next alien/terrorist/innocent-if-utterly-brainless bystander you'll instead find yourself staring into the kitchen. It's a jarring experience and by training yourself not to do it you're only dissociating yourself from the world of the game. To my mind that's the main reason why motion controls today feel so stilted and unnatural rather than the thought->action delay Yachtzee describes.

tl;dr As long as games continue to be projected onto flat surfaces rather than some kind of cyclorama, motion controls are going to continue to suck goat scrote.

Thing is that... just as Ebert is right about 3d being a gimmick.. motion controls is a gimmick as well, as long as it's just trying to replace the controller. And replicating what you would do on a controller much better.

There are a lot of people in the industry, people who want to sell you the move as well, that will pitch it this way. Because the typical problem when handing a controller to a non-gamer, is that they're put off playing. They can't push the right buttons, they watch their shoes and the sky, and so on. So they want a more easy controller to replace the gamepad.

And it really would be completely useless to everyone if that's all there is to it. Which.. it is from a particular marketing point of view. But if you actually look at the tech, you could easily turn up with a reserved positive opinion - the move, for example, does enable you to do different things that won't be possible on a gamepad.. and it can replace an implementation of the same abstraction in some ways. If it's the troublesome view-port in first-person games, or controlling objects more accurately. And we've seen that already in the demos. So that actually does have a few uses that can make gaming more like virtual reality than we're at right now. It also fits really well with the gradual and context-aware animation that the ps3 can drive.

Even if it also means the marketing people will also be able to pitch it as a more easy way to control things.. and even if I'm sure there'll be shovelware all round for the most part. ..but you know.. just the Sorcery demo, and the Kung-fu rider demo - either of those aren't really possible to do in a satisfying way with a controller.

Weatley can't be Yahtzee. It is too good natured to be Yahtzee.

captain underpants:
Wow. TWO people that completely misunderstood the point.

That's not the point of thought control at all. Nothing in what he said implied that thought control = infallibility. You'll still need to practice your skills, it'll just mean you'll be perfecting actual gameplay skills rather than those involved in wrangling a controller. It'll be just the same as controlling the flesh, except your body will be virtual.

...No, because in the real world, you're actually having to learn to control your body movements. In thought control all you'd be doing is thinking of what your character should be doing. That's like the epitome of lazy, casual, moron gaming. 'Hey, I should shoot that guy WHOO I DID IT!"

How could any sort of skill be tested when all you're doing is thinking, unless you're playing a game like Sudoku or something like that? Neither real gun shooting skill nor current gaming gun shooting skill are primarily based on thinking, they're mainly based on reflexes and the ability to keep a steady aim. Steady aim doesn't have anything to do with the thought process involved.

I agree. I have a wii that has been collecting dust for the past two years since about one or two months after I bought it. And yes, I was excesivley disappointed by it. What Yahtzee says about an idea like the matrix, I would more than gladly help anyone who plans on making something that epic. I for one just hope the 360 or PS3 don't end up losing so much money from this idea, even though I like PC gaming more I still like and respect them.

I guess we'll just have to wait it out. Wait until this whole 3D and Motion Control gimmick craze blows over. Maybe somebody will go bankrupt and they'll start spending their money on something more productive like what Yahtzee was talking about. YEAAAAH! I'd take the red pill anyday.

Charcharo:
Less bile, more logic. You are getting good Yahtzee. Really good.
Also where are the Metro 2033 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. : Call of Pripyat reviews?

It depends when Australia gets them.

Jedi Sasquatch:

captain underpants:
Wow. TWO people that completely misunderstood the point.

That's not the point of thought control at all. Nothing in what he said implied that thought control = infallibility. You'll still need to practice your skills, it'll just mean you'll be perfecting actual gameplay skills rather than those involved in wrangling a controller. It'll be just the same as controlling the flesh, except your body will be virtual.

...No, because in the real world, you're actually having to learn to control your body movements. In thought control all you'd be doing is thinking of what your character should be doing. That's like the epitome of lazy, casual, moron gaming. 'Hey, I should shoot that guy WHOO I DID IT!"

How could any sort of skill be tested when all you're doing is thinking, unless you're playing a game like Sudoku or something like that? Neither real gun shooting skill nor current gaming gun shooting skill are primarily based on thinking, they're mainly based on reflexes and the ability to keep a steady aim. Steady aim doesn't have anything to do with the thought process involved.

I'm not looking to start a flamewar but it sounds like you really don't understand how the nervous system works.

underscore_b:

Jedi Sasquatch:

captain underpants:
Wow. TWO people that completely misunderstood the point.

That's not the point of thought control at all. Nothing in what he said implied that thought control = infallibility. You'll still need to practice your skills, it'll just mean you'll be perfecting actual gameplay skills rather than those involved in wrangling a controller. It'll be just the same as controlling the flesh, except your body will be virtual.

...No, because in the real world, you're actually having to learn to control your body movements. In thought control all you'd be doing is thinking of what your character should be doing. That's like the epitome of lazy, casual, moron gaming. 'Hey, I should shoot that guy WHOO I DID IT!"

How could any sort of skill be tested when all you're doing is thinking, unless you're playing a game like Sudoku or something like that? Neither real gun shooting skill nor current gaming gun shooting skill are primarily based on thinking, they're mainly based on reflexes and the ability to keep a steady aim. Steady aim doesn't have anything to do with the thought process involved.

I'm not looking to start a flamewar but it sounds like you really don't understand how the nervous system works.

Okay, after re-reading Yahtzee's article, yeah, wow, I pretty much completely misinterpreted what he was saying.

But frankly, if you're talking about a sort of Matrix-style virtual reality, I think that's even worse than Kinect, because if your nerves are receiving the same sort of impulses that you'd receive if you were actually doing whatever activity is being simulated in the game, then why not just do that activity in real life?! Admittedly you wouldn't have to worry about actually getting shot or whatever and risk being injured in the real world, but other than that, it would basically be the same as doing the real activity except you wouldn't get the workout.

lacktheknack:

Charcharo:
Less bile, more logic. You are getting good Yahtzee. Really good.
Also where are the Metro 2033 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. : Call of Pripyat reviews?

It depends when Australia gets them.

They already have them. This time the games were only 1 month late there.

I really don't get it, am I the only one that can look past the over exagerated arm flailing thing and see the increased depth of control the wii-mote/nunchuk setup provides?

Lets go back to the start of Nintendo with the NES. With a NES controller Star Fox wouldn't work, with a SNES controller you couldn't play Golden Eye, and an N64 controller wouldn't cut it anymore for a fast paced online multiplayer FPS. As far as I'm concerned there's only so much you can do with two thumbs on on an XY analogue stick (and as an earlier gamer I hated using the right thumb on the buttons, fingers worked way better), which takes a lot of time to become almost as intuitive as a mouse. While you can't really say it's been fully realized this is why I've always like The Wii's approach, increase intuitiveness of the directional controls while also upgrading it from XY XY input to XYZ XY XYZ. I'm not sure how many games you have to play until using a PS3 or 360 controller for a FPS feels as natural as a keyboard & mouse, but when you compare say firing a bow in Shadow of the Colossus vs Twilight Princess, aiming & firing a weapon in Resident Evil 4, or painting in Okami, it all works so much more naturally on the Wii.

It's more a personal thing but I also don't get the hate on using the wii-mote & nunchuk in a non flailing game compared to the classic or traditional controller. Unlike how Nintendo advertises I find it increases the vegetative state as you don't have to have your hands glued togethe on a controller in front of you, but rather can laze around however you want. There's some limit on the Wii since the two controllers are attached by a cord, but that's not going to be a problem with the PS Move!

Jedi Sasquatch:

underscore_b:

Jedi Sasquatch:

captain underpants:
Wow. TWO people that completely misunderstood the point.

That's not the point of thought control at all. Nothing in what he said implied that thought control = infallibility. You'll still need to practice your skills, it'll just mean you'll be perfecting actual gameplay skills rather than those involved in wrangling a controller. It'll be just the same as controlling the flesh, except your body will be virtual.

...No, because in the real world, you're actually having to learn to control your body movements. In thought control all you'd be doing is thinking of what your character should be doing. That's like the epitome of lazy, casual, moron gaming. 'Hey, I should shoot that guy WHOO I DID IT!"

How could any sort of skill be tested when all you're doing is thinking, unless you're playing a game like Sudoku or something like that? Neither real gun shooting skill nor current gaming gun shooting skill are primarily based on thinking, they're mainly based on reflexes and the ability to keep a steady aim. Steady aim doesn't have anything to do with the thought process involved.

I'm not looking to start a flamewar but it sounds like you really don't understand how the nervous system works.

Okay, after re-reading Yahtzee's article, yeah, wow, I pretty much completely misinterpreted what he was saying.

But frankly, if you're talking about a sort of Matrix-style virtual reality, I think that's even worse than Kinect, because if your nerves are receiving the same sort of impulses that you'd receive if you were actually doing whatever activity is being simulated in the game, then why not just do that activity in real life?! Admittedly you wouldn't have to worry about actually getting shot or whatever and risk being injured in the real world, but other than that, it would basically be the same as doing the real activity except you wouldn't get the workout.

But then I wouldn't need to schedule a soccer game with my friends if I wanted to play, or at least we could all play together even if there was a storm outside.
It would be like using a cellphone instead of a regular phone. Everything you can do with a regular phone is feasible on a cellphone, but the cellphone is just that more practical.

Still a long way to go though until computers can reliably read brain signals. At least for doing anything other than playing Pong. Or Frogger.

Jedi Sasquatch:

But frankly, if you're talking about a sort of Matrix-style virtual reality, I think that's even worse than Kinect, because if your nerves are receiving the same sort of impulses that you'd receive if you were actually doing whatever activity is being simulated in the game, then why not just do that activity in real life?! Admittedly you wouldn't have to worry about actually getting shot or whatever and risk being injured in the real world, but other than that, it would basically be the same as doing the real activity except you wouldn't get the workout.

Um, because you can create whatever reality you want, access it whenever you want, and do things you'd never be able to do in real life. You know, much like we do now with games, except with much higher fidelity.

This is what I keep telling my friends. Its a stupid gimmick that drags people in for the whole "easy to pick up and play!" or "bring your family together". Regular systems do that themselves. You dont need to have to flail around in front of a tv like a tosspot to have fun. Im not sure if its because ive been playing games since I was 4 but 'easy to pick up and play'? I have no trouble adapting whatsoever.

You've got the point, I agree completely.

Rasputin1:

Tharwen:
What? Wheatley sounds nothing like Yahtzee! Silly people...

The new robot thing? How could anyone possibly think that thing is Yahtzee.

No, how could it be anything like yahtzee. but i think it vbe better it was.

:wheatly (yahtzee version): Hey you..... yeah, you, the human prick. get ready to catch me.......... oh wait a new wii game came out..... oh great."

MikeTheElf:
Games are meant to be gimmicky. They're built around capturing your attention at least long enough for one to buy it, to feed the parties involved with its production and sale. Immersion is just a bonus that everyone feels entitled to. To use an allegory: food works the same way; one can sustain oneself on food that doesn't taste good, but once one tastes more enticing food, one expects more out of all future foods. Everyone was content when 8-bit games were on the market, just as everyone was content pumping quarters into arcade machines for hours or days.

Entertainment has always been a contest as to what can hold one's attention; this results in a battle to see who can produce the nicest gimmick, game or service. This means that when one company does something that is the slightest bit profitable, all companies in the field will do the same; CDs supplanted cartridges, DVDs CDs, Blurays are apparently next. People are attracted to the shiniest object, and the Wii outsold both PS3 and 360. Motion control was naturally the next step. No one cares about innovation; they all want money.

I agree with Yahtzee's perception of current motion control technology and stereoscopic 3d are more gimmick than utility. But like what you said, gimmicks sell. The challenge is, how fast can they get the technology to mature before the novelty wears off? Much like movies, if explosions are starting to desensitize moviegoers, you're pretty much stuck with two options: find a new gimmick, like bigger explosions in 3d, or get to the essence of making films, which is conveying a proper story.

It's the same with other technology. Touch screens were a huge hype years ago, and they've been used on kiosks all over. But using them as a standard interface for computers hadn't caught on simply because it wasn't hitting the right marks. Only when it was applied to portable devices was its potential fully realized.

As for stereoscopic 3d, I see it as something analogous to stereoscopic audio. A different perspective for each eye gives you depth perception, but if you look at the screen from a different vantage point, things would look really messed up. It only works if you're sitting at the right spot. Until we get to the point where each view is rendered depending on where you are relative to the screen, it would remain a gimmick. (So yeah, maturity of 3d displays would eventually move to holographic projections and such.)

As for the annoying debate on immersion, I would side with Yahtzee with this. While it is true that 1:1 motion control would provide better stimuli, it's more of a question of how long you can sustain that immersion. For games that you'd play for 10 minutes at a time, it should be perfectly fine. Unfortunately, most games are played for hours per sitting. You wouldn't play action games to get your ass handed to you just because you're out of breath in real life. You'd rather see your avatar beat the shit out of everyone non-stop, aye? For games meant for gamer hobbyists, I see motion control being relegated to secondary input, like shrugging off enemies, breaking down doors, entering rage mode once you start throwing the controller around the room, etc.

In summary, motion control is more immersive to the point where you're too tired to play. Once you get there, you'd be more willing to suspend belief using a normal controller. So in time, we'll see that some games benefit from motion control(like on-rails shooters and arcade sims) and some games are still best played with the standard controller setup (like action-platformers and RPGs).

As usual you are completely right - motion controls as they stand in this dumbed down form will only work for 'simple' games - this means their only appeal will be for casual gamers.

As infuriating as it is that the games industry seems to be sticking its middle finger up at its 'core' customers I'm sure that anyone else would have done the same in terms of running a business.

At the end of the day to get more money you need more customers, and not everyone is going to want to sit with a controller and gun their way through gears of war or something like that. While we (the core gamers) call it a 'gimmic' the rest of the industry call it 'accessability' - meaning that little children, non-gamer adults, and old people (who are all easily impressed) are more likely to go for something that is more accessable and provide 'simple fun' rather than providing a specific gaming experiance.

And at the end of the day 50 from a child, grandmother or non-gamer is still the same 50 as from a 'core' gamer, regardless of how much its ACTUALLY used (ie a core gamer will play it to death where as a casual gamer would play it once or twice a month - still cost the same either way) and while we laugh at how stupid the whole thing looks I think we also need to remember the key thing: This is NOT ment for us.

Also on a side point about 'Thought -> Action' in games, you are right that adding distance or complexity to the situation will only make things LESS immersive I would have to say in some situations it would probably be more 'authentic' - think about the solider in a battle - they see an enemy and they think "Shoot" but they still have to bring the rifle up, align the sight and pull the trigger where as us gamers just press a button.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here