Extra Punctuation: Getting Innovation Wrong

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Doesn't matter... My participation in the new Wii relies, unquestionably, on 4 things, in this exact order -

1)Price. The best thing about the Wii was its light ass price tag, compared to what the big boys were asking.

2)Games. Specifically, how long will it be till Smash Bros 4 comes out?

3)Can I play Smash Bros 4 online?

4)Can I plug in a Gamecube pad when I play Smash Bros?

Nintendo's user base:
1. Fanbois who will buy their shit no matter what.
2. People that just want to play Pokemon, Zelda and SSB.
3. Idiots drawn in by cheap gimmicks.
4. People that realise that their latest console is bullshit but buy it anyway to justify hating it.
5. Your Gran.

Those five groups cover about 90% of the population. Notice how only one of those groups is drawn in by actual games, and those are games that haven't changed since the 90's.

CrystalShadow:
Eh. Clearly Yahtzee wrote this before the latest rumours came up.

Decent haptic feedback means you can probably make a decent attempt at using a touchscreen without looking at it.

Better still, the one demonstration video shown of that kind of technology shows it can be applied to curved surfaces, and areas that aren't a screen.

This means it can be applied (in what I would consider the ideal case) the grips of the controller.

(Hence, the area where your palm, and most of your fingers are usually in contact with the controller.)

Lots of options for 'extra' dynamic buttons, and lots of options for touch feedback.

Also, yes, stereoscopic 3d is a half-assed trick that is unlikely to ever get past being a gimmick.

But holographic 3d, is according to recent rumours, about a year from a practical (if incredibly expensive) commercial implementation.

And once you have a holographic 3d display, rather than a stereoscopic one, most of the limitations that stop 3D doing anything useful suddenly go away.

You can have proper depth. From something floating right in front of your nose, to something well into the screen at a huge virtual distance...
You won't need glasses. (because if you did, the holographic principle wouldn't actually work anyway)
Your eyes will be able to focus correctly on the light patterns. (because they are reconstructions of the natural way light would fall on your retina for a set of objects with a given 3d relationship to the viewer)
Chances are, because the effect of the most probable implementation relies on real-time processing (because the location of the viewer is part of the calculation), all existing 3d content will probably work on such a holographic display without needing explicit modification.
That means even if such displays start out horrendously expensive, they are a viable 'soft' upgrade from other 3d displays, because unlike moving from 2d to 3d, you don't need to alter the content to do it. (well, not necessarily. - There's probably a mathematically more efficient way of encoding 3d for holographic displays than simply using the method stereoscopic 3d uses for saving such content. - but that doesn't mean 3d content for stereoscopic displays couldn't be tweaked to work. Obviously, content explicitly designed for a holographic display can do without artificial restrictions caused by the limitations of stereoscopic 3d.)

The most serious limitations will be that the viewing angles, and allowable locations of objects (especially if they seem to be in front of the screen) means that the screen edges put a bit of a limit on where things are visible.
The (seemingly) most practical and useful implementation still requires a lot of processing power, and high-speed eye tracking to make it viable. (Both of which together limit the number of people that can watch a single 3D screen.)
And, the requirements of constructing displays in a manner somewhat different to current displays (3d or otherwise) - even if the overall implementation shares a lot of parts with more traditional displays - means the costs of the earliest models are probably going to be astronomical.

This. I believe Yahtzee touched on this point in the past - it's not Real 3D unless you can move your head and see new detail. This new Nintendo product is not a 3DS, it's a 2D-with-depth-perceptionS, migraine optional. My experience with stereoscopy is admittedly minimal, but I don't think one can really argue against this one point. It's a fact, pure and simple.

This next part is a little off-topic. There's this thing someone posted earlier:

Delusibeta:

There are several hacks floating around for people using the Wii remote far beyond your standard motion controls. Here's an example:

Watch from about 3:45. Now that, in this humble poster's opinion, is interesting. Convincing, and as easy on the eyes as watching "normal" 2D. What's more important though, is the guy achieved it with nothing more than a camera and "glasses" that are really just there to tell the camera what to look at.

3DS has a camera facing the player. Since it's a handheld, the position of player's head and eyes can be much more easily determined, rendering the "glasses" obsolete.

You can see where I'm going with this. Is it possible to recreate the effect? If so, you can set the 3D slider all the way to "never again" and still have 3D on 3DS. Better, in fact, than what stereoscopy can cough up. No splitting, no headache, no people incapable of using it. Hell, you wouldn't even need two eyes. The pirate lobby is sure to approve.

I have, of course, never had a 3DS in my hands. If there is some obvious reason this can't work, you can disregard the entire idea. Otherwise, I demand to know why not?

i have to argue with you; being that the HD-DVD was a total rip off, BLU RAY disk, offer a completly new, and interesting video experience. Of course, you need a BLU ray play, HDMI cord, and a 1080p tv. But if you have all 3 then its a total better experience then DVD. As for 3D, it is a total gimmic. Not worth it at all.

TheRealCJ:

Lukeje:

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.

Isn't the screen supposed to have at least some sort of physical feedback?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109722-Rumor-Nintendos-New-Console-Will-Make-You-Feel

Physical feedback != tactile controls.

With a controller, you move your thumb, find the button, press the button. But most importantly, you don't HAVE to do step three immediately.

But with a touch screen, as soon as you touch it, that's a "press", which means theres no room for error, so you either have to have millimetre-fine spacial perception in your thumbs, or look at the screen. Or you have to hold your thumb above the screen, and a hour of that would be pretty painful.

I did say ``some sort of''. I was making the point that his complaint could turn out to be misguided, not that it would be.

Lukeje:

TheRealCJ:

Lukeje:
Isn't the screen supposed to have at least some sort of physical feedback?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109722-Rumor-Nintendos-New-Console-Will-Make-You-Feel

Physical feedback != tactile controls.

With a controller, you move your thumb, find the button, press the button. But most importantly, you don't HAVE to do step three immediately.

But with a touch screen, as soon as you touch it, that's a "press", which means theres no room for error, so you either have to have millimetre-fine spacial perception in your thumbs, or look at the screen. Or you have to hold your thumb above the screen, and a hour of that would be pretty painful.

I did say ``some sort of''. I was making the point that his complaint could turn out to be misguided, not that it would be.

Um, okay?

No need to take the offensive. I was just explaining wh physical feedback won't work no matter how it's implemented.

TheRealCJ:

Lukeje:

TheRealCJ:

Physical feedback != tactile controls.

With a controller, you move your thumb, find the button, press the button. But most importantly, you don't HAVE to do step three immediately.

But with a touch screen, as soon as you touch it, that's a "press", which means theres no room for error, so you either have to have millimetre-fine spacial perception in your thumbs, or look at the screen. Or you have to hold your thumb above the screen, and a hour of that would be pretty painful.

I did say ``some sort of''. I was making the point that his complaint could turn out to be misguided, not that it would be.

Um, okay?

No need to take the offensive. I was just explaining wh physical feedback won't work no matter how it's implemented.

And I'm saying that that could prove to be short-sighted. At what point was I `taking the offensive'?

Lukeje:

TheRealCJ:

Lukeje:
I did say ``some sort of''. I was making the point that his complaint could turn out to be misguided, not that it would be.

Um, okay?

No need to take the offensive. I was just explaining wh physical feedback won't work no matter how it's implemented.

And I'm saying that that could prove to be short-sighted. At what point was I `taking the offensive'?

Sorry, that was supposed to be "defensive".

And unless Nintendo implement a screen technology that is years ahead of anything else available (and, the best of my knowledge, yet non-existent), any controller-based touch screen will have all of the above fundamental flaws.

TheRealCJ:

Lukeje:

TheRealCJ:

Um, okay?

No need to take the offensive. I was just explaining wh physical feedback won't work no matter how it's implemented.

And I'm saying that that could prove to be short-sighted. At what point was I `taking the offensive'?

Sorry, that was supposed to be "defensive".

And unless Nintendo implement a screen technology that is years ahead of anything else available (and, the best of my knowledge, yet non-existent), any controller-based touch screen will have all of the above fundamental flaws.

Hey, a man can dream can't he?

Lukeje:

TheRealCJ:

Lukeje:
And I'm saying that that could prove to be short-sighted. At what point was I `taking the offensive'?

Sorry, that was supposed to be "defensive".

And unless Nintendo implement a screen technology that is years ahead of anything else available (and, the best of my knowledge, yet non-existent), any controller-based touch screen will have all of the above fundamental flaws.

Hey, a man can dream can't he?

Sure, the same as another man is allowed to mercilessly and comprehensively tear said apart.

I think it's abundantly clear what the "next dual analog sticks" is. It's the back touchpad on the NGP. That should be the thing they stick in the next Nintendo controller, a multitouch panel on the back rather than a touchscreen on the front. Forget the motion control and cameras altogether. Think about this; it's a mouse. The very first thing I thought when they unveiled the NGP was you use the back touchpad to control the camera in games instead of the analog stick. It would give you mouse look style camera control; you adjust the exact position of your view instead of adjusting the rate at which it's moving in one direction. Of course you can use it for other things, but that mouse style freelook is the first thing I think of. On a handheld it gives you that option without having to obscure the screen, and it would work fine on a home console with the right controller shape.

Its position on the back is the perfect place; a touchpad works better when it's bigger (you have more surface area to swipe around on). There's more unused space on the bottom of a gamepad or the base of a handheld than on the top. It also puts the touchpad on a separate layer from the controls that you operate with your thumbs or index fingers. You can use your remaining fingers to use it simultaneously with the usual face (sticks, buttons) and shoulder controls (triggers, bumpers), and since it's a multitouch pad you can adjust what it actually does based on how many fingers are actually touching it.

Because it's on the back, it doesn't crowd out any other controls. You can have all the same input features as a regular gamepad, but with the touchpad added in to the mix. In the same way rumble was added to gamepads there's the potential to someday have a touchpad that can alter its surface texture, giving us another type of force feedback. A real haptic touchpad is far more likely than a haptic touch screen because the pad doesn't have to display anything. It can be composed of a more malleable material than any screen.

There's plenty of room for a large touchpad on the bottom of a classic controller pro, and that's what Nintendo should do instead of sticking a touchscreen on the front. And if your argument against it is that it would be hard to avoid touching, remember that there are really only 2 use cases where the pad would actually trigger any input. Either it's only used in certain special circumstances outside of which touching it triggers nothing, or it is used for a common action (like looking) so you want to be touching it most of the time anyway.

I think this is the exact opposite of a gimmick; it's something that would lead to better control and more control without being cumbersome in complex games the way motion control is (or breaking immersion). It's simply a way of adding a mouse on a gamepad, one with the added options provided by multitouch and the potential for more haptic feedback in the future.

Yes, 3D will need to have worse graphics than the rest of the current consoles, but then they will keep making progress until they reach the glorious point when they can have HD 3D. To me, 3D effects add more to the gameplay than HD does. It makes the environment feel more threedimentional (strange how that is), which can add a lot to the experience. I don't need anyone to tell me 3D is the future, I just need to look at the graphics to see what I prefer.

I fair 3D effects on the 3DS might become the same as motion controls on the Wii though - with Nintendo being nearly the only ones who manage to intergrate it correctly.

exampleAccount:
Nintendo's user base:
1. Fanbois who will buy their shit no matter what.
2. People that just want to play Pokemon, Zelda and SSB.
3. Idiots drawn in by cheap gimmicks.
4. People that realise that their latest console is bullshit but buy it anyway to justify hating it.
5. Your Gran.

Those five groups cover about 90% of the population. Notice how only one of those groups is drawn in by actual games, and those are games that haven't changed since the 90's.

You must not forget the children demographics - I think it makes up more than ten percent.

Tin Man:

3)Can I play Smash Bros 4 online?

Since SSBB could be played online, it is almost definitely yes. The question is, will it lag?

WaderiAAA:

Tin Man:

3)Can I play Smash Bros 4 online?

Since SSBB could be played online, it is almost definitely yes. The question is, will it lag?

Yeah, I was going for short and sweet post for effect, but what I SHOULD have said was - Can I play Smash Bros 4 online... And not have it suck balls.

Fixed =]

As an addendum though, this console being light enough to be a practical thing to carry places would be a plus... Lets be honest, all men of the world know that the true and princely way to play Smash is on a sofa, with 3 mates, and a fresh sack of smokeables to hand.

Can I get a hell yeah!?

Dunno about using my pinky on a controller. Not a whole lot of dexterity in that finger and when I move it, my ring finger moves with it. Doesn't make for very good controls, I think.

Hmmm, well my DS Lite finally went the way of the dodo, and I picked up a 3DS to replace it... of course I pretty much just use it to play DS games at the moment, so I can agree with the gist of this article still. I was looking at the 3D games and honestly none of them really appealed to me much.

IMO a gimmick is only as good as what you can do with it, the problem with motion controls is that they were never usable for anything other than the most casual of games. Almost any attempt to produce a game with any kind of real depth with them seemed to result in a spectacular failure. It's pretty sad when it's viewed as a sort of achievement that this new, innovative technology can do something that was being done easily with the older stuff. "We made a shooter that works with motion controls" is kind of ridiculous when you already had shooters.

Whether 3D pans out for the 3DS to me largely depends on whether they can come up with some games that exploit this. It's possible though, as while it took a while I was skeptical of the whole "touch screen" thing, and then I played games like "The World Ends With You" and "Etrian Odyssey" and felt that it was really neat. Well the former did I guess, the latter mostly earned nerd points from a guy who used to play games like "Might And Magic" which included pads of graph paper to map the game as you explored it... sort of like people did with PnP RPGs at the time. :)

The thing is that right now, 3D has done nothing to convince me "wow, this is a really awesome gameplay feature", like the touch screen gimmick eventually did.

Personally, for full sized consoles I've been of the opinion that having seperate screens attached to the controllers might not be a bad thing. I mean imagine a FPS game where the screen on your controller effectively becomes a motion detector readout, like thy had in the "Aliens" movie, or displays an interactive mini-map or whatever. Not to mention the potential for more games like "The World ends With You" where you can control what's happening on two screens that relate to each other simultaneously.

Of course given the greed of the industry I can't see them producing a controller that is basically a re-purposed DS at a reasonable price.

Squilookle:

Volkov:

Squilookle:
And you know what? Blu Ray and HD-DVD were exactly the same thing- a technological gimmick that nobody even needed.

I disagree with this. Higher-definition image does, actually, help watch some movies.

BUT:
- Most movies do not benefit from the higher definition.
- An image with EVEN higher definition than Blu Ray would NOT be useful. There is no use for any more pixels than that.
- The sound that both BR and HD-DVD provided is also about as good as is necessary for a home setup. I really don't think that any time in the next few decades sound systems will get so good that they will need higher definition sound than that carried by the blu ray.

Yeah see, what you listed pretty much sums up my thoughts on DVD.

Well, one does have to realize though - this is not entirely a matter opinion. Thing is, an eye can, measurably, tell the pixelation on a DVD assuming you have a large enough (but still fitting in a residential area) screen, and the ear (not everyone's, but people with good musical ears, i.e. sound engineers and musicians) can, still, tell which frequencies are missing from the DVD sound channels. But for Blu Ray - an eye literally cannot identify the pixels, therefore, adding any more would not add anything visible. (Unless the household screens got so large that they wouldn't fit in households any more).

Now, one could argue that "even if my eye can tell that pixelation exists, it in no way detracts from the experience" - and this, unlike the previous point, WOULD in fact be a matter of opinion. But even if you do hold that opinion - you really can't argue against measurable (both by human eye and more precise tools) differences in image quality, which, one can theorize, do make a difference to a lot of people (and they do).

An important question is also this - when you say DVD is enough for you - on what size screen?

double post.

WaderiAAA:

exampleAccount:
Nintendo's user base:
1. Fanbois who will buy their shit no matter what.
2. People that just want to play Pokemon, Zelda and SSB.
3. Idiots drawn in by cheap gimmicks.
4. People that realise that their latest console is bullshit but buy it anyway to justify hating it.
5. Your Gran.

Those five groups cover about 90% of the population. Notice how only one of those groups is drawn in by actual games, and those are games that haven't changed since the 90's.

You must not forget the children demographics - I think it makes up more than ten percent.

Children fall under idiots.

Santa216:

Watch from about 3:45. Now that, in this humble poster's opinion, is interesting. Convincing, and as easy on the eyes as watching "normal" 2D. What's more important though, is the guy achieved it with nothing more than a camera and "glasses" that are really just there to tell the camera what to look at.

3DS has a camera facing the player. Since it's a handheld, the position of player's head and eyes can be much more easily determined, rendering the "glasses" obsolete.

You can see where I'm going with this. Is it possible to recreate the effect? If so, you can set the 3D slider all the way to "never again" and still have 3D on 3DS. Better, in fact, than what stereoscopy can cough up. No splitting, no headache, no people incapable of using it. Hell, you wouldn't even need two eyes. The pirate lobby is sure to approve.

I have, of course, never had a 3DS in my hands. If there is some obvious reason this can't work, you can disregard the entire idea. Otherwise, I demand to know why not?

Ooh. Yes. You probably could. I believe, in fact, there's already a DSi game that uses that technique. (The DSi had a camera.)

The Wii remote's IR tracking system is a lot faster than most webcams, but really, any webcam can do this if it has face tracking software.

But there's a major bonus if the camera and screen are physically attached, because otherwise you kind of need a calibration run every time someone moves the camera.

So something like the DSi/3ds with a camera in a fixed relation to the screen would be perfect for it.

Did the 3DS fail really hard or something? Yahtzee is really hating on it.

Volkov:

Squilookle:

Volkov:

I disagree with this. Higher-definition image does, actually, help watch some movies.

BUT:
- Most movies do not benefit from the higher definition.
- An image with EVEN higher definition than Blu Ray would NOT be useful. There is no use for any more pixels than that.
- The sound that both BR and HD-DVD provided is also about as good as is necessary for a home setup. I really don't think that any time in the next few decades sound systems will get so good that they will need higher definition sound than that carried by the blu ray.

Yeah see, what you listed pretty much sums up my thoughts on DVD.

Well, one does have to realize though - this is not entirely a matter opinion. Thing is, an eye can, measurably, tell the pixelation on a DVD assuming you have a large enough (but still fitting in a residential area) screen, and the ear (not everyone's, but people with good musical ears, i.e. sound engineers and musicians) can, still, tell which frequencies are missing from the DVD sound channels. But for Blu Ray - an eye literally cannot identify the pixels, therefore, adding any more would not add anything visible. (Unless the household screens got so large that they wouldn't fit in households any more).

Now, one could argue that "even if my eye can tell that pixelation exists, it in no way detracts from the experience" - and this, unlike the previous point, WOULD in fact be a matter of opinion. But even if you do hold that opinion - you really can't argue against measurable (both by human eye and more precise tools) differences in image quality, which, one can theorize, do make a difference to a lot of people (and they do).

An important question is also this - when you say DVD is enough for you - on what size screen?

You know what? You're the first person I've ever talked with that gave a decent reason why Blu Ray should exist other than just 'MOAR PIXELS NOW GET EXPENSIVE UPGRADE COS U HAVE TOO!' When you put it your way it actually does make sense. I'm also still a bit bitter how aggressive Sony is with pushing this new crap. I'm quite glad that their UMD format failed, and don't have much against the PS3 personally, but I'm glad to see that their 'power+size=good, justified a huge price tag' marketing didn't work. With any luck they'll treat their customers a bit more respectfully next time, instead of treating them like spoiled kids who will pay anything for the biggest lollipop.

I hate to break this to you, but Apple is actually carrying the ball. Much to my dismay, may I add.

Now, regarding stereoscopic 3D, I'd like to play the devils advocate for a sec. Do you remember when the first "3D" games started to appear? (you know, the flat 3D we've been playing all these years). At that point, we moved from beautifully hand drawn sprites, to blocky, untextured polygons. Back then, people also said we were reducing the graphic quality.

I dislike steroscopic 3D as much as the next guy, but.. just saying.

With no mind to dig through all the comments to check if anyone else has said the same, I'll dive right into my retort to the following quote:

"... and no new technology has ever lasted that's less convenient to use than what it's supposed to replace."

Nice generalization there. Lots of inventions' first versions were a lot harder to use than the things they replaced.

Case in point: The flintlock rifle versus the (long)bow. The bow can fire as many arrows as your bowman's arms can make it, while the first rifles were only able to fire once every minute or so with experienced reloaders. You had to carry along all kinds of equipment and keep the rifle clean during every battle, while the bow was way more simple and versatile. Wielded by experienced archers, it was more accurate at longer distances than any rifle (even those used by highly trained personnel). If at any step in the reloading procedure a shooter mucks up, he has the chance to lose limbs or even die. Doesn't sound that great on paper, does it?

Similar points could be made about automobiles and horses (horses were more versatile, easier to fuel up and maintain, and did not require roads) and several other very important inventions.

Just because an invention is less convenient it doesn't mean in the slightest it's not going to utterly disembowel their predecessors, and current marketing voids any sort of natural selection through ease of use, of which Apple churns out a new example every other year.

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.

I can only tell the difference between normal and HD on a small screen (Monitor for example) but even then it's mostly resolution. I can't even tell the difference between normal and HD on the 19" or my 32" TVs in my house. Not many of my family can. It is useful for some things, but sometimes I do wonder why they need it for everything. Yes, HD probably help distance wise, but my living room/bedroom are not THAT big, and close up it still looks a little pixelated XD

Also, 3D makes my head spin: 3D cinemas, 3DS (tried it once, by the time I put it down I had to lie down because my head was aching and spinning), basically anything 3D other than life XD. And I can tell you now: I sure don't need 3D to make me lose my lunch or take 5 minutes to recover. A normal flat screen game (either 8-bit, PS1-3, Gamecube/Wii etc) with a good story line and (at least) half-decent controls and I'm happy. 3D and/or HD are NOT necessary for enjoyment. The need for 3D/HD varies from person to person. YOU may see it as a must, but other people don't and there is nothing that can be done to change that.

Hitman Dread:
Clauging up the display is NOT "perfectly fine" it is "the best we can do."

It is not about clogging up the display, its about putting the information where your eyes are. Even on the DS most games stick all the critical information on the primary screen instead of the secondary, as you really do not want to waste time switching screens just so you can look at your healthbar. And on the DS both screens are the same distance and close together, with a TV and a controller you would have even bigger issues.

That is not to say that I can't see uses for it, in a slower paced complex military simulation, sure a touchscreen could help quite a bit. But I don't really see Nintendo going into that direction anytime soon and you could get most of the benefits just by sticking a few more buttons on the controller much cheaper.

Having a screen on the controller just sounds to me like a solution looking for a problem. Maybe there is that killer game concept that utilizes it in amazing ways, but even after five years of NintendoDS and playing through FourSwords on the Gamecube/Gameboy I just don't really see it.

I'm definitely against 3D. It reminds me of full motion video in the 90s where it didn't really work and was just a gimmick because of it's "new technology."

exampleAccount:
Nintendo's user base:
1. Fanbois who will buy their shit no matter what.
2. People that just want to play Pokemon, Zelda and SSB.
3. Idiots drawn in by cheap gimmicks.
4. People that realise that their latest console is bullshit but buy it anyway to justify hating it.
5. Your Gran.

Those five groups cover about 90% of the population. Notice how only one of those groups is drawn in by actual games, and those are games that haven't changed since the 90's.

Wow if that's not a clear fanboy line, I dunno what is. Okay I can play that ignorant game too:

Microsoft and SONY's user base:
1. People who prefer graphics over gameplay and are wowed by HD.
2. Hillbillies who only want to play war based games and shoot things.
3. Madden junkies.
4. Pretentious, elitist snobs who only care about tech specs.
5. Your drunken uncle.
6. Worthless neanderthals who think CoD hasn't stagnated faster than any Nintendo franchise.
7. Petty, opinion-less blobs that listen to Metacritic and only Metacritic.

See how stupid arguments towards a company or console like this really are?

I disagree.3d, when done well, is Immerisve.

In avatar, it was used to give depth to the background and secenery.

Bad 3d is stuff popping out.

Okay... I have to say I disagree with Yahtzee on the entire motion-control issue. Maybe it's because I love action-adventure-RPG games, but I found the Wii's gesture controls to be untapped potential. In games that focus on melee combat and the like, the gesture controls allow RPG-type games to have the number of combat options of a Fighting Game with 1/4 the buttons tied up.

I also liked the cursor-like precision I had in the Wii's FPS games (I found Modern Warfare to be far more enjoyable on the Wii than the "superior" 360 version), but what frustrated me was the lack of a thumbstick on the main wiimote for turning.

Honestly, I think gesture control is only as gimmicky as it's implemented. I'm looking forward to whip and sword combat in LoZ: Skyward Sword, but the bow definitely seems like a gimmick. But 3-D is a gimmick.

And HD is pretty nice, especially for text-driven games. Unless I'm missing something special about it, I think I've been taking it for granted.

I'll say this, in my opinion the first DS was a success. Nintendo managed to incorporate 2 major innovations into their system (the touch screen and the dual screens) in a meaningful way which added dimensions to gameplay, and that's what caused the system to sell. I was initially skeptical about 2 screens, but after getting the original DS I quickly fell in love with the concept.

The 3DS, however, doesn't really have any innovations other than the 3D, which, in my opinion, is utter rubbish. I was playing around with a friend's (who claims that it is the best thing since sliced bread) and at first had no idea what the 3D was actually doing other than giving me a headache. After playing around with it for a bit while playing the AR games and Pilot Wings, I had the eureka moment "Oh, THATS what the 3D is doing", followed closely by "Oh, THATS not very impressive". Was it a neat little gimmick? Yes. Did it add any value to the game? No.

Additionally, I'm becoming suspicious that Nintendo doesn't think very highly of gamers anymore. One of the big reasons for this is the lack of a second analog stick on the 3DS. The PSP was heavily criticized for not including one, so why didn't Nintendo clue in. Also, Pilot Wings feels like a cheap excuse to steal money from us. I remember greatly enjoying Pilot Wings for the Super Nintendo and the N64 because of the wide variety of levels and challenges. PW:SR doesn't have that, its short and lacking in variety.

I'm not a complete cynic yet, but I feel cheated by the 3DS. Even ignoring the 3D, it isn't quite enough of an upgrade to the DS to justify purchasing, in my opinion.

3D sucks so deal with it.

Well most of you guys seem to young to remember, but exactly - EXACTLY - the same thing happened back in the early 90ies, when games where switching from 2D hand-drawn sprites to 3D engines with polygons.

And damn where those first 3D games ugly. Blocky models, flat low-res textures, bad lighting. But almost every new game coming out was called "GAMETITLE 3D" and everyone made big fuss about it.

And guess what, back then many people said "3D sucks, let's stay with 2D, that looks way better." And there where people complaining about headaches and nausea.

It's just history repeating, but this time it's about stereoscopic 3D.

All I can say is: neuronic controller FTW!!!

 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