Extra Punctuation: Getting Innovation Wrong

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Raeil:

"But with the Wii and 3DS innovation one-two punch that dismally failed to connect, what kind of hardware will Nintendo lead their next blow with?" - Another factually false statement for at least the first half. The Wii is still the highest sold console, meaning it definitely connected with a large group of people. The 3DS has been out for a little more than a single month and the numbers are lower than expected, so I'll not argue this point, even though I personally disagree.

Finally, this: "I'm trying to think of ways to employ a touch screen and a TV, and the problem I keep bumping against is that the player can only look at one screen at a time." You're right, they can only look at one screen at a time, that explains why the Nintendo DS has flopped completely... oh wait, it's the highest selling handheld of all time (if you use the numbers for all its iterations).

tl;dr - Maybe I've missed the entire point of this particular article, but the fact stands that most of the statements and projections from Yahtzee (the serious ones anyway, not the "kill us and take our money" ones) are not based in reality. [Edit - Fixed a few blanket statements.]

Your point about the DS working with two screens is a flawed argument. It works alright because the screen are the same size and the same distance from the player. If you have a 3 inch screen and a 60 in screen 10 feet apart your eyes will strain trying to keep both in focus. Also who plays with a controller in a place where they can look at it?

Also the Wii is the highest selling console, but it's also the most resold console. I have no numbers for that but I've known about 10 people who bought a Wii and 8 or them have gotten rid of it and the other 2 barely play it.

Dear Yathzee, you surprise me with this article. Clearly you are un-woo'ed by this whole 3D thing trend and you've decided to take a whack at whoever does 3D. I can't blame you, I'm not totally into it myself just yet, being old school (like i am) i bet you prefer good ole 2D games too.

But as an (e)Journalist, I wish you had been more objective on your evaluation of the facts at hands. If anything, Nintendo has been paving the way of innovation for years while others just wait to see if its gonna pickup, and clone it if it does. Haven't always been successful, i'll give you that, N64 was rather a failure than even a product. The wii on the other hand had more success than anyone dare anticipate prior to its release. Among the big three (even four back when Sega was still there), only Nintendo believed in motion sensor in a remote. Now look, tremendous success. MS rushed to get Kinect out and get its bib too, then Sony "moved" into that market as well.

3D, let me put it this way, is a when, not an if. The deciding factor will be "who can do it right". just enough to add the "whoa" factor and not too much to avoid the "huh, so dizzy" factor.

The sooner you get on that trend, the sooner you'll start being able to experiment with that line.

And now, its history repeating. Nintendo wants to get out before everyone. Everybody is busy speculating why in their own opinion its not a right move...again, bashing the big N on this, on that, on what they speculate they should do. Future can only tell what will happen. My opinion is that Nintendo will rack up fuckloads of money while MS & Sony catch up the train that just left.

A more journalistic approach to your article should have understood the obstacles and challenges ahead, what pieces are in place, what's missing and try to survey the 3D market along with other hot trends in gaming and how the three leaders are positioned to address that.

Well anyway, i felt i had to share because you're usually so good at describing what a game did right, what it did wrong, what it should have been and with good humor. In this one, it felt like you where bashing Nintendo pure and simple.

mjc0961:

Raeil:
Finally, this: "I'm trying to think of ways to employ a touch screen and a TV, and the problem I keep bumping against is that the player can only look at one screen at a time." You're right, they can only look at one screen at a time, that explains why the Nintendo DS has flopped completely... oh wait, it's the highest selling handheld of all time (if you use the numbers for all its iterations).

tl;dr - Maybe I've missed the entire point of this particular article, but the fact stands that the statements and projections from Yahtzee (the serious ones anyway, not the "kill us and take our money" ones) are not based in reality.

I think you missed the point because you didn't read all of it. If you had, you would have noticed the part where he said that the touch screen for the DS works because it's right below the other screen and you can see what's on both at the same time, but the same doesn't hold true when one is a TV that's far away and the other is a controller in your hand. Remember, there were a few games on GameCube that had you use GBAs for controllers instead, and you really can't easily switch between the TV and the GBA screen as you can with the two DS screens.

Sorry, but it seems that your post is what is not based in reality here. That or you just purposely ignored parts of the article to hate on it a little more.

Thank you for pointing that out. It's true, I did not see that explanation, but mostly that was because the entirety of my first post had already been fleshed out and I was skimming at that point. Forgive me for making a single mistake of reading.

Also, the whole "post is what is not based in reality" applies to one point of five. I don't mean to start a flame war, but when you refute a single point of an argument it does not invalidate the rest unless the other points are tied to it. Thank you again for point out the flaw, but it hardly invalidates the remainder of my points.

I like to think of the 3D in the 3DS like the Rumble Pack for the N64. A nice little addition that I choose to ignore that Nintendo decided to try to make ]marketable point despite it not really being that important to the actual system (the 3D was just marketed even more). Honestly, every just seems to think the 3D is the ONLY thing there is about the 3DS. There are better complaints to be had... and yet everyone focuses on the ones that's easiest, and in this case, unlike the Wii, one that can be completely ignored: "GIMMICK GIMMICK GIMMICK!"

As for Project Cafe: You want to know what a SMART dev would do? Just ignore the touch screen unless it can genuinely contribute to the game, and focus on making a game with the whole standard layout. With the exception of the touchscreen, with the updated graphics and now standardized (for the most part) controller, there can be better 3rd party support. The only real concern I have now is how their currently abysmal online service could be improved.

As for the bit where he clearly doesn't know about the whole "feel" thing (Which will probably end up just being another optional or just bonus feature), I think it's more likely he wrote the article before it was announced, considering we just found out about it last night. Simple matter of bad timing.

Falseprophet:
The only use for a controller screen I can think of would be a local multiplayer game where you have information you want hidden from other players, like strategy (turn-based or RTS), card games or football. Does anyone make these kinds of games any more?

You are rather simply minded if that is truly all you can think of. A 2nd screen opens up a world of options. Allow me to go through some current gen games and showcase how they could be improved with this alleged controller.

Metal Gear Solid 4: You now discuss with Otocan during battle, drastically cutting down on cutscene time (something the game needs) as well as increasing emersion. The visuals were rarely essential in those cam calls anyway, so they video could play while you continue scoping out the level. Now Metal Gear Solid has finally successfully fused it's story with it's gameplay, instead of them being two separate entities.

Multiweapon FPS: Your items are all on the touch screen, allowing you to call them in on the fly. The basic UI on this could be done a number of different ways, and done correctly the player could easily commit this to muscle memory as he already does many other things. There's actually quite a bit that can be done with FPSes and this 2nd screen, from simple item interface to calling an air strike.

RTS: RTS's have never worked with consols, but this may give them a chance. Having this screen could allow for dealing with complex interfaces that RTS's require.

These are just basic UI enhancements too, from an artistic standpoint there's a flurry of ideas that could be brought to the table.

eniac0:
Dear Yathzee, you surprise me with this article. Clearly you are un-woo'ed by this whole 3D thing trend and you've decided to take a whack at whoever does 3D. I can't blame you, I'm not totally into it myself just yet, being old school (like i am) i bet you prefer good ole 2D games too.

But as an (e)Journalist, I wish you had been more objective on your evaluation of the facts at hands. If anything, Nintendo has been paving the way of innovation for years while others just wait to see if its gonna pickup, and clone it if it does. Haven't always been successful, i'll give you that, N64 was rather a failure than even a product. The wii on the other hand had more success than anyone dare anticipate prior to its release. Among the big three (even four back when Sega was still there), only Nintendo believed in motion sensor in a remote. Now look, tremendous success. MS rushed to get Kinect out and get its bib too, then Sony "moved" into that market as well.

3D, let me put it this way, is a when, not an if. The deciding factor will be "who can do it right". just enough to add the "whoa" factor and not too much to avoid the "huh, so dizzy" factor.

The sooner you get on that trend, the sooner you'll start being able to experiment with that line.

And now, its history repeating. Nintendo wants to get out before everyone. Everybody is busy speculating why in their own opinion its not a right move...again, bashing the big N on this, on that, on what they speculate they should do. Future can only tell what will happen. My opinion is that Nintendo will rack up fuckloads of money while MS & Sony catch up the train that just left.

A more journalistic approach to your article should have understood the obstacles and challenges ahead, what pieces are in place, what's missing and try to survey the 3D market along with other hot trends in gaming and how the three leaders are positioned to address that.

Well anyway, i felt i had to share because you're usually so good at describing what a game did right, what it did wrong, what it should have been and with good humor. In this one, it felt like you where bashing Nintendo pure and simple.

Yahtzee isn't a journalist.

Yahtzee is writing an opinion piece.

This is his opinion:

3D is a fad that needs to die because it can't possibly advance the medium in any meaningful way.

Take it or leave it.

3D never was anything more than a gimmick to raise the price of movie tickets, and motion controls simply never were implemented well. Touch screen controls are probably the next big thing. The DS and its iterations are very popular, no matter what anybody says about them, and developers actually gave a shit enough to incorporate its "unique" functions. (Of course far, far too many devs incorporated them badly or as simply another button, like the Wii controls.) The popularity of toys like the iPhone, iPad, and Android have brought a new generation of shovelware to more people than ever... and people continue to buy that crap.

You're right, Yahtzee. Nintendo is pulling its hair out, screaming "what the hell do you people want?". But what are Sony and Microsoft doing? nothing.* It works for now, but as you said, simply pushing for bigger, better graphics isn't going to work anymore. Nintendo is trying to innovate in a market which, ironically, both desperately needs and vehemently rejects innovation.

Maybe Bob was right. Maybe the "home console" and "PC" markets as they were 5 or 10 years ago is evolving away from boxes and living rooms and into handhelds and cloud computing or whatever. As I said before, this industry desperately needs to evolve. Nintendo is searching out what we want, and Sony and Microsoft are starting to experiment. It'll probably be awhile before any of them actually stumble across the next big innovation, and they're probably all going to eat some serious losses trying to find it.

What really needs to happen is hardware and software need to evolve together. Neither is going to make any progress at innovating unless both embrace experimentation. Take the auto industry. Car manufacturers aren't developing non-gasoline technology, because fuel companies aren't developing alternative fuels, because car companies aren't making vehicles to use them... etc. Right now we're finally seeing the beginnings of a new movement, but only because both cars and fuel are evolving at the same time. The same thing must happen in the gaming industry.

*(Ok, not nothing. They're trying to copy Nintendo's failed experiment because it made money. Badly copying a bad idea is only going to get you a worse idea. Look at what happens when people keep trying to outsell Blizzard by cloning WoW...)

Sorry Yahtzee but the wii is, was and will be the highest selling console of this gen and also the only one that made profit right since the launch.

If this is "getting innovation wrong", Nintendo will continue to prosper.

mjc0961:

Tulks:
It can be, but in both cases the 3D is not necessary to your enjoyment, much like HD quality graphics.

This is such a load of crap and I don't know why people keep saying it. HD quality graphics are absolutely necessary. HD quality graphics don't just make things look nicer and more realistic if that's the art style chosen (which is a + for immersion right there), but they also effect things like draw distance and pop-in. You go try to make a GTA IV or Saints Row for the PS1 and see how well that works out for you when you can only see a yard or two down the road before everything turns into a indecipherable white mess in the background.

If you like 3D, fine, but you need to come up with something relevant to say when people say they don't like instead of spewing this nonsense about how HD quality graphics are not needed, because that's simply not true.

Sorry, this was incorrectly quoted as someone else, not me hence why I didn't respond to it in the original post. [Edit: I was incorrect, but we said the exact same thing, so I felt I should respond to it.]

It's true, HD has definitely helped the immersion and quality of a game, but is it necessary? For some games, of course it is. For a large amount of games though, it seems that HD exists to make things look better. From my limited understanding of video graphics, it seems the two things you mentioned (draw distance and pop-in) are hindered by HD. Sure, they've both increased during the HD upgrade, but if HD wasn't being used, couldn't the processors draw further and cause more pop-in? I could see HD being used to increase the resolution of the further distances, but is that fully necessary? Maybe, maybe not (again, I'm not extremely educated on this, so I can't give a straight answer) From personal experience, and this is my personal experience only, HD doesn't seem to be necessary in the majority of games, hence why I play a lot of my 360 games on a standard def TV.

With 3D, again, it's not hugely necessary. Personally, I think it's great for immersion, but I can see why people would be annoyed at it, hence why the majority of companies are producing the possibility to view their content in 2D.

In regards to Yahtzee's new controller innovation, I'll be interested in seeing how well the back touchpad on the NGP will be utilised. If done correctly, it could become a pretty revolutionary feature; it adds a whole new way to manipulate the game by using fingers that would otherwise be completely useless.

Then again, whenever I played my PSP, I found that the unused fingers had a tendency to go to sleep, especially the pinkies. This could affect it somewhat. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

The experimental / transitional phase is where the fun lies. You don't have to buy everything, or cheer everything on, but change and experimentation is exciting.

I agree 3-D probably isn't the future whatsoever. People don't want to sit around with glasses on their heads, it causes headaches for a lot of folks, and there are other limitations involved. But I think it is a cool stepping stone towards the next level of immersion which is what companies are aiming for. Motion controls, HD, voice recognition, now 3-D, the rumor of texture based touchscreens. It's easy to imagine holograms, maybe another stab at virtual reality (remember when this was the next big thing around the turn of the century?), tactile gloves, and other technology coming together very soon in the future. Probably not five or even ten years, developers simply won't be able to create enough content using all this new tech, and I'm sure costs for consoles would be prohibitive. But this is certainly a step towards that next level. I think now it's maybe a matter of just letting developers catch up with the tech before they take the next leap forward, because right now it is kind of fracturing things to the point where a developer can't use this technology because it can't apply to other consoles, which limits the money they can make back on it.

9_6:

Yahtzee Croshaw:
And if you used the touch screen for extra contextual buttons then you'll run into the iPhone game problem that there'll be no physical feedback.

The screen can supposedly simulate textures you know.
You can have your buttons with feedback and on the fly buttons each game can make for itself seems like a solid step forward to me.

What I'm more concerned about is that touchscreens forced to be used with the fingers become disgusting real quick.

Unfortunately the ability to simulate a texture does not translate to the ability to simulate a mechanical object like a button. Haptic interfaces allow the user to "feel" that areas of the screen are different from others, for example, a "rock" texture would offer more resistance to user imput that a "water" texture. But that is a far cry from replicating something like a button or a joypad, at the very least, what you can make is for example, a valve that offers resistance to the player when he/she tries to move it.

Actually, I'd like to do away with pausing for everything but controller/audio/visual calibration. Having to organize my inventory or solve a puzzle with monsters breathing down my neck would encourage me to make sure those monsters aren't there when I do those things. Brilliant!

I actually liked Tron: Legacy because (among other things) it used 3D as more than a cheap gimmick. It used it like the Matrix used a green filter - scenes inside the Grid were filmed in 3D, scenes in the real world were filmed normally. In the end, though, unless this practice becomes way more common, I agree with Yahtzee - it's not the way forward.

I guess the touchscreen can work well if it's used only as a touchpad or tablet - we can use those easily and it might work. I for one do like using the touchpad.

If it's used truly as a screen however... Well... What good was the Dreamcast controller screen good for again?

I agree with the gist of this article, but...

Yahtzee:
[snip] but now processing power is about at the highest level it can be for practical purposes. Sure, we could still staple more and more memory on but there are going to be fewer and fewer companies in a position to make the most of it.

What? Is that a joke? Firstly, console processing power is nowhere near the highest it can be. On the inside, the 360 is basically a PC; I'm sure that after all this time it could be upgraded without significantly affecting the cost, reliability, size, or heat/noise output. Secondly, most game developers struggle constantly with the low amount of RAM on consoles. If that RAM were increased it'd used up by developers before you can say "Hello World". I'm really baffled by your notion that developers would struggle to use it.

But yeah, I agree that some 3D technologies create a cardboard cut-out effect, and the various new motion controls are all worse than a standard controller, and that none of them are likely to spell success in the immediate future. But Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo et al. know that to stand still and do nothing is to die, so they're all trying to do something, bless them. I'm happy to let them fumble around in the dark until one of them stumbles into a good idea.

I have watched exactly HALF of a 3D movie in my life, and played zero games in 3D. Is Yahtzee proud of me yet?

OT: It seems to me that the "Next clear direction" for gaming is to somehow incorporate the sense of Touch into Video games. Why should we use just Sight and hearing (smell sucks so we don't need that)? No idea how we could go about that though.

chromewarriorXIII:
I think the best way to use the touch screen on a controller would be for vague movements, like swiping your finger across it. It wouldn't have to be specific, just general stuff like that.

That then begs the question of why you need the touch screen in the first place though, as I can't think of any situation where being able to make those genstures would improve gameplay.

I can think of some things. Its rumored to have a camera too. Think of Okami, you hold the controller up the camera shows the tv image on the screen you draw your symbol on the touchpad to do whatever. That would be awesome.

I love motion controls and think this sounds great. the problem is when they are SHOVED IN EVERY GAME. Its like when every ps3 game had some immersion breaking sixaxis bs part to remind people it could do it. And token wii waggle controls are lame, but when they work they work and can be fun.

I think 3D has great potential, it's just not being implemented right. One thing about it is that you no longer need depth of field because your eyes will do it naturally when you focus on the foreground. The problem I have, that kind of throws me out of the experience, is say when watching Avatar and something in the foreground is very fuzzy because the cameras are focusing on the characters. Everything should be in focus... if I focus on the characters then the foreground becomes blurred and vice versa. When you force things to be blurred with 3D, instead of drawing attention to what's in focus like it does in 2D, I find it draws my attention to that wierd thing that shouldn't exist.

mjc0961:

Tulks:
It can be, but in both cases the 3D is not necessary to your enjoyment, much like HD quality graphics.

This is such a load of crap and I don't know why people keep saying it. HD quality graphics are absolutely necessary. HD quality graphics don't just make things look nicer and more realistic if that's the art style chosen (which is a + for immersion right there), but they also effect things like draw distance and pop-in. You go try to make a GTA IV or Saints Row for the PS1 and see how well that works out for you when you can only see a yard or two down the road before everything turns into a indecipherable white mess in the background.

If you like 3D, fine, but you need to come up with something relevant to say when people say they don't like instead of spewing this nonsense about how HD quality graphics are not needed, because that's simply not true.

When did I say that? I have no objection to HD visuals, I just find that 3D isn't the gimmick I'm looking for.

Guy Jackson:
I agree with the gist of this article, but...

Yahtzee:
[snip] but now processing power is about at the highest level it can be for practical purposes. Sure, we could still staple more and more memory on but there are going to be fewer and fewer companies in a position to make the most of it.

What? Is that a joke? Firstly, console processing power is nowhere near the highest it can be. On the inside, the 360 is basically a PC; I'm sure that after all this time it could be upgraded without significantly affecting the cost, reliability, size, or heat/noise output. Secondly, most game developers struggle constantly with the low amount of RAM on consoles. If that RAM were increased it'd used up by developers before you can say "Hello World". I'm really baffled by your notion that developers would struggle to use it.

But yeah, I agree that some 3D technologies create a cardboard cut-out effect, and the various new motion controls are all worse than a standard controller, and that none of them are likely to spell success in the immediate future. But Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo et al. know that to stand still and do nothing is to die, so they're all trying to do something, bless them. I'm happy to let them fumble around in the dark until one of them stumbles into a good idea.

Yahtzee has made this point before. The amount of development time/money/people it takes to take advantage of proccessing power make it impracticle for to make great looking games without AAA support. So for practicle purposed the hardware is as good as MOST people can afford to take advantage of.

I thought the natural next step would be the merge 3-D with motion control... You know, interactive holographic set-up. Mind you, it would be kinda clunky and intuitive, but as they experiment, eventually it would become effectual enough to be used outside of gaming.

Then 3-D modeling and animation would be soooooo much easier.

I actually think the industry should work on improving the 3D. The 3DS doesn't seem impressive, but I wouldn't mind putting on some weird glasses to enjoy the benefits of a home console with good enough 3D graphics. Not only would it look cool in action games[1], but it would also introduce depth perception into games, which can be incredibly useful for purposes such as helping to solve some of those misjudged platform jumps you often complain about.

I do agree about the textures on the touch screen though. That's the bad kind of gimmick. It's something that is included just to say "We have this feature! It involves advanced technology!" when the feature itself isn't that impressive or interesting, and it does nothing more to actually improve the gaming experience.[2]

[1] Make fun of me all you want for enjoying something so simple, but there really is no problem with including something that is simply fun because it is cool
[2] ...that I can think of. Anyone feel free to correct me if you can think of a way that this rumored new technology can improve a gamer's experience.

bombadilillo:

Guy Jackson:
I agree with the gist of this article, but...

Yahtzee:
[snip] but now processing power is about at the highest level it can be for practical purposes. Sure, we could still staple more and more memory on but there are going to be fewer and fewer companies in a position to make the most of it.

What? Is that a joke? Firstly, console processing power is nowhere near the highest it can be. On the inside, the 360 is basically a PC; I'm sure that after all this time it could be upgraded without significantly affecting the cost, reliability, size, or heat/noise output. Secondly, most game developers struggle constantly with the low amount of RAM on consoles. If that RAM were increased it'd used up by developers before you can say "Hello World". I'm really baffled by your notion that developers would struggle to use it.

But yeah, I agree that some 3D technologies create a cardboard cut-out effect, and the various new motion controls are all worse than a standard controller, and that none of them are likely to spell success in the immediate future. But Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo et al. know that to stand still and do nothing is to die, so they're all trying to do something, bless them. I'm happy to let them fumble around in the dark until one of them stumbles into a good idea.

Yahtzee has made this point before. The amount of development time/money/people it takes to take advantage of proccessing power make it impracticle for to make great looking games without AAA support. So for practicle purposed the hardware is as good as MOST people can afford to take advantage of.

The industry is already becoming a AAA-only affair according to a flurry of recent articles on gaming sites (including this one) so this point is rather moot, no?

dunnace:
The major flaw I see in modern FPS these days is peripheral vision, but unless you are willing to put a head band type device on and make a single circular screen that ain't gonna happen.

Also, Portal 2 really made me want 3d at times.

An FPS that used a circular screen? You know, I now have a picture of me sitting in front a TV that wraps around my head in a semi-circle. And I'm thinking, "That would be fucking sweet!"

On topic: I know this is either a pipe dream or far into the future, but I'm ready for something like from .hack. Boring show, never played the games, but the idea of plugging your brain into an MMO-type place greatly appeals to me. I think it would just be awesome.

As for now - I just want to see more innovation. I love shooters, but like Yatzhee I want to see more third parties with good ideas release full-fledged games instead of just those smaller games on XBLA and PSN. And even those are beginning to get clogged with remakes and HD updates of older games.

On Nintendo's side of things, I'm thankful that they have gone back to traditional buttons. I hope the screen is used more for handheld gaming, like sitting on the couch in the next room and play, or play on the john, or instead of splitscreen, have all the players play on their controllers so as not to be so damn cramped.

Also, make a mature game. You can do it, Nintendo. It will greatly increase your reputation. Or at least make a new IP that's more than just something to sell your gimmick.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
They'll flog LPs made of pressed ham for the all-in-one entertainment and dining experience. Then they'll probably think, "Ah, why not cut out the middleman?" and then just kill us and take all our money.

What's an LP?

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Don't be fooled by 3D. Just ... don't. 3D is nothing more than an expensive experiment being carried out by the entertainment industry. Not a technological experiment, mind, a psychological one. The entire entertainment industry is trying to determine if it's possible to pass off an inferior gimmick as the next step towards the technological singularity simply by having every media outlet on the planet tell everyone that it is.

Ah, kinda like HD then eh?

One way Nintendo's new controller concept could work would be in a situation like in LoZ: Four Swords Adventures on GameCube where if you hooked up a GBA as the controller, then every time you went in a house or a cave in the game the action would switch to your GBA. So they could work it where when you enter certain areas, the action would switch to the controller's screen.

Sicamat:
Unfortunately the ability to simulate a texture does not translate to the ability to simulate a mechanical object like a button. Haptic interfaces allow the user to "feel" that areas of the screen are different from others, for example, a "rock" texture would offer more resistance to user imput that a "water" texture. But that is a far cry from replicating something like a button or a joypad, at the very least, what you can make is for example, a valve that offers resistance to the player when he/she tries to move it.

I thought it was about that tech that enables touchscreens to have bumps and a button is very much a bump.
As for feedback, button not pressed = bump there, pressed = bump gone should feel like pushing a button.

Meh I like the 3D gimmick in movies and games. It makes me feel like I'm living in the "future"

except there are still no jet packs or flying cars and nothing is covered in chrome....

FFFUUUUUUTTTTTUUURRRRREEEEE

9_6:

Sicamat:
Unfortunately the ability to simulate a texture does not translate to the ability to simulate a mechanical object like a button. Haptic interfaces allow the user to "feel" that areas of the screen are different from others, for example, a "rock" texture would offer more resistance to user imput that a "water" texture. But that is a far cry from replicating something like a button or a joypad, at the very least, what you can make is for example, a valve that offers resistance to the player when he/she tries to move it.

I thought it was about that tech that enables touchscreens to have bumps and a button is very much a bump.
As for feedback, button not pressed = bump there, pressed = bump gone should feel like pushing a button.

No, it's not the same. That's Microsoft thinking big and expensive, think small and no more than 400 bucks for the whole system.

I think that it's both quite clear and alarmingly unmentioned that consoles, like most of the developed computer world with it, are moving towards the information infrastructure. I think the next console to be built needn't have that much greater graphic potential than the 360/PS3, but rather should have the interface and infrastructure set to be most accessible for groups of people playing together online.

Though Microsoft did this marvelously with the 360's Xbox Live, it is not beyond belief that a similar attempt could be made by Nintendo or Sony (if they can get over the massive trust loss from the hacking fiasco), just so long as they implement the best system for making a console a social network as much as it is a gaming machine. It cannot veer in either direction, or it ends up as superexpensive solo campaigns with little market potential, or social-only "games" like Playstation Home, which are cool and junk but exceedingly boring after walking in people's way a dozen times.

My brother and I hardly play Call of Duty to get great games done or unlock new stuff; we play because it's fun to have a controller in our hands and flashy lights on the screen while we chat about stuff with all of our friends online.

Just because Project Cafe will have superior hardware doesn't mean 3rd party developers will have to use them. As a PC gamer, I still buy, play, and enjoy games that I can't run in 1920x1080 resolution. Sure, it'd be better if they could, but graphics don't make the game.

Sgt. Sykes:
I guess the touchscreen can work well if it's used only as a touchpad or tablet - we can use those easily and it might work. I for one do like using the touchpad.

If it's used truly as a screen however... Well... What good was the Dreamcast controller screen good for again?

Glad I wasn't the only one who remembered the DC having that tiny little worthless screen in it's controller.

 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
Registered for a free account here