3D and motion controls aren't gimmicks.

[yoshiru]

3D and motion controls aren't gimmicks. At least, they aren't any more gimmicky than HD graphics or realistic physics. I realize that 3D and motion controls don't appeal to everybody, but I have yet to see a valid argument as to why these two elements are inherently more gimmicky than the innovations listed above (and yes, this includes Yahtzee's articles as well).

You're absolutely right: They aren't more gimmicky than HD graphics or realistic physics. But guess what? They aren't any LESS gimmicky, either.

The problem Yahtzee (and sane people) have with 3D and motion controls is that they're being marketed as the biggest new upgrade that everyone needs to have, and they're not. If having every movie in 3D is going to make my movie-going experience go from 8.50 to 14.50(USD), than I would rather not have every movie in 3D, thanks. Just big screen movies make some people sick, adding 3D to that will make even MORE people sick, 3D just alienates the audience, it doesn't make it grow.

As far as comparing it to physics or HD: HD doesn't matter either, my computers have had screens that are "HD" for years, HD was just a way of marketing TVs to consumers so the industry would be able to raise the standard resolution (this is a problem I have with TVs and consoles: when the industry feels they need higher quality to achieve what they want, they have to get the entire consumer base to upgrade their hardware. Whereas with the computer industry, the industry upgrades their material as they see fit, and the consumers do the same. The changes are much more dynamic and less forced upon you).

Realistic Physics? They upgrade a game as much as they can, but I've never pretended it suddenly made games perfect, no more than DX11 Tessellation will "suddenly make games perfect".

 

[Laser Priest]

I have no depth perception. 3D is useless to me. And motion control just genuinely isn't fun.

I hate to sound insensitive, but if you have a disability that prevents you from experiencing something are you really the best person to judge whether or not it is a gimmick? You certainly have a very good reason to dislike it, but that's not quite the same thing.

I'm not saying that makes it a gimmick. I'm saying that it really fucking sucks for me.

 

[Netrigan]

Again, how is this any different from the "potential" we were promised with physics? I remember back when HL2 came out people were saying it would revolutionize games: "Fully physically interactive environments will revolutionize how action games are played! It'll add new strategies, multiple solutions, and deeper gameplay!" So far all we've seen are "force pull/push" powers and maybe a few very linear "destroy this environment object" puzzles (which incidentally was possible back in the quake era, albeit with less flair).

And I have yet to see a game where HD graphics affect the gameplay in any way.

Physics and HD are things that have (more or less) naturally been added to games over the years. We've been chasing after better graphics since video games debuted and more accurate modeling of physics is appreciated by a lot of gamers. Neither changes things in any major way, but they mostly flow from what everyone is already doing.

HD was probably the biggest hurdle, because it relied on a whole lot of factors, such as HD TVs becoming cheap enough, blu-ray players becoming fairly cheap (along with blu-ray discs), TV producers filming in HD, and cable providers broadcasting in HD. Video games were a part of this process (with both MS & Sony attempting to use their console to cement the HD standard they had invested in), all to sell a product to an audience that when given the choice between VHS, Betamax, and video-disc, chose the worst picture quality because it offered the cheapest recording options.

And we still haven't seen the vast majority of people switch over. We've got years to go, as a lot of people probably won't bother upgrading until their existing equipment breaks down.

So Sony wants to sell us 3D TVs when very little 3D content exists... and it's still incredibly expensive (more so if you want more than one pair of glasses), and while it might be cool to play a 3D game in real 3D, few are going to be willing to shell out the bucks to do so. Nintendo's solution is cheaper, but already people are complaining about comfort and battery life when playing in 3D. Are people going to shell out more money for a product less convenient than the one they own to play games that can be played in 2D?

As for motion controllers, we really haven't seen the Motion Controller Killer App. While that dance game is pretty big success, for the Kinect to become a Killer App, we have to see an easily copied trend with enduring popularity. Seeing how Guitar Hero spectacularly crashed recently, a new rhythm game is probably not it. And Nintendo, despite having the best selling console of this generation (and one of the better selling consoles in history) talks of the Wii almost as if it was a failure. The motion control games just haven't proven to be a dependable source of hit games.

So we keep on doing what we always do. Make games that look a bit better than the last ones, slipping in a few new features in the hope of keeping it fresh enough to sell.

 

[Nexus4]

Physics are a gimmick? Dr Freeman would like to have a word with you about that!

 

[mjc0961]

3D and motion controls aren't gimmicks. At least, they aren't any more gimmicky than HD graphics or realistic physics.

I still don't see why so many people believe this nonsense. Being able to see things more clearly and having a longer draw distance has certainly added a hell of a lot more to games than making everything look like paper cut-out bullshit ever will. In fact, it's gotten to the point for me where I feel safe in disregarding everything else someone has to say on the subject after they pull this useless argument out, because it shows how little understand they have of what HD quality graphics have done for gaming. And as an added bonus, you said that better physics don't makes games better either, so yeah, I'm quite content to assume that you really have no idea what you're talking about here.

 

[Plurralbles]

the thing is: and yahtzee fucking said this, is that ISN'T an upgrade. It's moving linearly while HD graphics and processing power clearly affected gameplay and made the game more immersive and changed what agame ultimately could BE.

You're dismissing shit for no reason.

Guy above me hit the nail on the head very hard and I'm pretty sure it blasted through the earth and is no in space somewhere....

 

[Eternal_Lament]

Alright, I'll answer both your queestions as to why both 3D and motion controls as they stand now are gimmicks.

3D: The most common argument I seein favour of 3D (or at least in defending it) is that its stupid to say that it has no purpose other than graphical improvement when HD graphics are something worth acheiving in games "Yet it only improves graphics". Heres the issue with that argument though. HD isn't simply some feature to make something look better for the sake of making a quick buck, it is rather a response to the increase in technological advancement. As years go on, the technology behind TVs increases, with picture quality being improved with each new addition. The problem with this though is that if we simply keep game engines at a bare minimum or old bones design, the quality of the game isn't going to look good. In some cases the graphics in the game would actually be worse on a better and newer TV as opposed to an older and less superior one. As such, HD graphics aren't simply just trying to make a game look "puurrty", it is trying to make the game look at least bearable. Further, any open-world game would not exist today if the advancement in graphics were not around, otherwise almost nothing would be renderable. Do you remember how games like the original Silent Hill series would have dense fog or total blackness in front of the player most of the time either in the open world town or open buildings? Theres a reason for that, and it isnt just an artistic one. It is because at the time it would've been impossible to actually render what the town would look like in all directions. Hell, look at the GTA series. Did you ever wonder why the first two games were top-down and the rest afterwards in 3D enviornments? Part of it was because they simply couldn't do the open world thing due to the graphical limitatins at the time. 3D however, unlike HD, does not have that purpose. 3D for the most part is not reactionary to the advancement of technology, it is rather a feature to make something look good for a quick buck. Think of it like this. While HD has proven that certain games don't work without it, 3D has yet to do that. This isn't a matter though of it being too young. Both Sony and Nintendo have gone on record on saying that their 3D technology is not a mandatory thing, in that all games released either for the 3DS or games released with 3D compatibility can still play just the same with or without the 3D. What this means is that neither company is going full ahead with the 3D enough to show how certain games can only exist with the 3D. They aren't trying to make games that utilize 3D as part of the gameplay and make it a necessary feature, they are making the same games they always have that just happens to have a 3D feature. Thats why its a gimmick, because it adds little in the way in innovation to prove that certain games can benefit from its existence. Perhaps someday someone will come up with a good concept that would only work with 3D, but untill that time and untill a company shows full dedication in making the 3D an integral part of gameplay 3d will be nothing more than an add-on that does little to add to the experience, thus a gimmick

Motion Controls: Whether or not you think the Wii has good games or if the Kinect and Move work, there is one thing that is undeniable: all three (all four if we include Sixaxis) have failed in proving that some games out there can only work with motion controls. Much like 3D, the reason motion controls are seen as a gimmick is because there has not been a game that proved that it couldn't exist without motion controls. Much like 3D, the reason why motion controls can but don't work is because game makers aren't trying to make games that would only work with the feature but are rather trying to make games that have been made before but have the feature of motion controls. One could argue that analog sticks at the time may have had the same reaction, but consider this: analog sticks were meant for one type of game, games that took place in 3D environments as opposed to 2D ones. Analog sticks and 2D games often didn't work together all the time, so game makers didn't make 2D games that used analog sticks, they made 3D games that functioned properly only once analog sticks were introduced.

Thats basically the crux of the whole gimmick thing. Both 3D and motion controls have yet to prove that they are integral for the existance of certain games, mostly because these features aren't trying to show a different set of games that would normally be unplayable without these features, they are trying to show how current games can work with these features, which brings he name gimmick: something that one can use but doesn't need to in order to still enjoy the game.

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

.....It's adds nothing to the gameplay. If you think that it adds better graphical quality, then that's your opinion.

Any gameplay that needs you to accurately judge distances (flight sims/platformers) is obviously affected by the addition of a 3rd dimension. There's nothing subjective about it.

HD IS a gameplay changer, as LA Noire is brilliant showing. It also helped drive story and character-driven games by utilising more complex and less cartoonish facial expressions on characters, a level of emotional interaction with the player not before achieved because it was able to tap in to our instinctual emotions not simply our intellectual ones (ie characterisation through text).

From what I understand, the characters in LA Noire are simply using better facial animations. They would be equally visible in standard resolutions.

I agree on the fact that sales paint a different picture. A different picture than what they did with the motion controls. Here, have a look.

http://tinyurl.com/5wq2b68

Don't be fooled by the initial explosion. This is the Hollywood tactics emplyed by the game industry as well. Something can be called successful only if it can sustain healthy sales. 4 million 3DSes in the first two weeks (which obviously included pre-orders) don't mean anything, other than show the number of early technology adopters. Nintendo said the "killer-app" of the 3DS is the included software, meaning steroscopic 3D applications and AR games. We can see how well the consumers responded to that. I can say the same for Kinect, but that's another story.

The problem is that the second point on that sales graph is when the earthquake hit here in Japan. They've had news stories here showing that all electronic sales look like that now.

If you can find a similar graph for Western sales data I'd be convinced though.

Anyways, I'll let you in on a little secret. The Wii and the revolution it brought wasn't only motion control. It was the (unfortunately only) theoretical notion that you could play whichever way you damn well pleased. Play NES style, play Nunchuk&Wiimote, play with Classic controller or with your old GC controller. There was motion control and it was exciting, but there were other options for those who didn't like it right out of the box, regardless of the fact that later on, Nintendo themselves would start getting sidetracked and adding unnecessary motions to games that didn't need them (DKCR and Metroid Other M are prime examples of this), thus seriously hamstringing your choice of controls.

And this is why people view motion controls as a gimmick. When it's shoved down your throat without much thought or without taking into consideration your personal preferences for controlling games, people start getting annoyed.

I agree, but most games nowadays have the option to use a traditional controller. Similarly, the 3DS has the ability to tone down/turn off the 3D effect too.

Both HD and Physics are the next step in an already existing evolution of computer games, where as 3D and Motion controls have been tried on MULTIPLE occasions and never succeeded.

Never succeeded? I can think of plenty of successful motion-controlled games. 3D is just starting to be used on a wide scale so it's difficult to tell, but like I mentioned in the OP, the potential is definitely there for certain genres.

Again, just what is the defining difference between a gimmick and an innovation? Is it impact on gameplay? If so both 3D and motion controls pass. Is it financial success and industry adoption? If so then motion controls definitely pass, as every major console (including the unreleased ones) now has some form of motion detection. 3D is supported by two of the 3 major hardware companies.

3D won't help you judge depth because, as I said earlier, it's forcing your eye to do things it isn't supposed to do.
3D modelling is enough for depth.

This just simply isn't true. If it were, then people without depth perception wouldn't be at a disadvantage when playing sports/performing jobs that require you to accurately judge distances.

 

[Aurgelmir]

Never succeeded? I can think of plenty of successful motion-controlled games. 3D is just starting to be used on a wide scale so it's difficult to tell, but like I mentioned in the OP, the potential is definitely there for certain genres.

Again, just what is the defining difference between a gimmick and an innovation? Is it impact on gameplay? If so both 3D and motion controls pass. Is it financial success and industry adoption? If so then motion controls definitely pass, as every major console (including the unreleased ones) now has some form of motion detection. 3D is supported by two of the 3 major hardware companies.

The difference between innovation and gimmicks is simple can be summed up by one little word: "Needs"

Market needs is what drives a success or failure, if the market feels the need for a device it will survive, but if the market never had any need for that product it will go down in history as a gimmick.

You seem to think motion controllers is something vastly new, and yet there has been multiple attempts on this before. The Power Glove is the best example. Same with 3D it came it flopped it went away.

The only reason it MIGHT win through this time is that billions of dollars is being put into it, and the quality is better.

But the facts are still that a lot of people do not feel a need for 3D or motion controllers, in fact they feel both hampers their enjoyment of the medium.

Forcing a Need on the population hardly ever works out in the end.

PS: Sales figures isn't all, because the Wii sold a lot of hardware but very little games per machine.

 

[MasterV]

The problem is that the second point on that sales graph is when the earthquake hit here in Japan. They've had news stories here showing that all electronic sales look like that now.

If you can find a similar graph for Western sales data I'd be convinced though.

Easy. Take a look at the hardware sales on the upper right side of the page and note the weekly difference.

http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly.php

(Silly me, forgot the link)

3DS weekly change -21%
PSP weekly change +25%

This is the same period, worldwide. I do believe that people choose the PSP over the 3DS after it has been in the market for 2 months now. Sure, the variety of games is greater on the PSP, since the 3DS is new, but the customer isn't stupid. He can see where Nintendo is going in the future, that is, more 3D. Specifically, more REMAKES in 3D.

Those in the know, who look around the internet see Miyamoto dispensing pearls like "A Link to the Past remake in 3D would be very interesing to me". Oh really? How about a new game? Of all the games already out or soon to be released, nearly 80% is a remake or re-release of some sort with 3D added on top.

The difference between innovation and gimmicks is simple can be summed up by one little word: "Needs"

Market needs is what drives a success or failure, if the market feels the need for a device it will survive, but if the market never had any need for that product it will go down in history as a gimmick.

The only reason it MIGHT win through this time is that billions of dollars is being put into it, and the quality is better.

But the facts are still that a lot of people do not feel a need for 3D or motion controllers, in fact they feel both hampers their enjoyment of the medium.

Forcing a Need on the population hardly ever works out in the end.

PS: Sales figures isn't all, because the Wii sold a lot of hardware but very little games per machine.

I find it funny you know, because the first two paragraphs I've quoted can very well aply to HD as well. Don't you find it strange that the HD twins couldn't commercially surpass the "shitty, underpowered Wii" not once during this generation until AFTER it stopped getting games due to Nintendo's obsession with 3D?

Don't you find it strange that both Microsoft AND Sony were losing loads and loads of money on every console sold by trying to shove HD down people's throats?

Don't you find it strange that more and more game studios are closing down nearly every month this generation, even though they produce state-of-the-art HD pieces of art?

Have a look at THQ's revenue analysis

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/85930/thq-loses-1361m-in-the-year-to-march-2011-udraw-to-x360ps3/

and tell me, on which console did they actually make a profit? (Hint:Not on any HD platform) And this is THQ, a big software publisher, with money to burn. Others in their position would've long gone under. Even EA Sports is considering charging fees for their annual franchises. And the industry is going forward with HD? AHAHAHA!

Sure, a lot of people may not feel the need for motion controls (namely, PC gamers and those on the dumbed down PCs called HD twins), but a whole lot more of them DO and really enjoy it. Otherwise the Wii should be long dead and buried, especially with no games coming out for 6 months.

You MAY be right about the console/game ratio on the Wii, but what can we do? When companies treat us like third grade citizens, we don't buy their crappy games. Look at Dead Space Extraction, Soul Calibur Legends, TWO Lightgun Resident Evils, the list goes on. Now, I'm not saying I didn't enjoy some of these, but I'd much rather have a full-blown game than a cheap knockoff, which is why I bought the PC versions. And don't tell me it's about hardware constraints. They released Dead Space on the iPad ferchrsissakes.

 

[badgersprite]

3D is a gimmick as it stands, and I say this as someone who has a 3D TV and very much enjoys it. But, really, as long as we live in a world where most people don't have 3DTVs and not all people have motion controls, how can we say these things are anything other than gimmicks?

Why did my Dad buy Wipeout HD? Because it's in 3D. Why do I play GT5? Because it's 3D. Why did my Dad buy a 3D TV? Because he wanted the 3D and thought it would be cool.

As long as we're in it for the 3D and not the game, it's a gimmick. Likewise with something like the Kinect. Are you in it for the motion control, ie to use the Kinect, or are you in it for the game? If you're in it for the experience of waving your arms around and having it show up on screen, then it's a gimmick.

There's nothing wrong with that. Whatever someone thinks is fun is great. More power to them. I'm going to go play something in 3D right now, as a matter of fact. But, yeah, to put it bluntly, if the additional feature is the attraction and not the content itself, that's what makes it a gimmick.

 

[mad825]

.....It's adds nothing to the gameplay. If you think that it adds better graphical quality, then that's your opinion.

Any gameplay that needs you to accurately judge distances (flight sims/platformers) is obviously affected by the addition of a 3rd dimension. There's nothing subjective about it.

em, graphical quality is subjective?

If you cannot judge distances without the pedsuo-3D then there's a major fault with the graphical design. Both 2D and 3D environment have their drawbacks which cannot be solved by the use of stereoscopic graphics, only Volumetric display would be able due to it's proper use(display) of 3 Dimensions in the real world.....Holographic principle not withstanding >.>

You are really making alot of assumptions which cannot be justified.

 

[Pearwood]

HD can turn a boring dull to look at sandbox game into a beautiful scene. I personally like motion control because it fits really well to certain kinds of gameplay especially sports sims. Would I pay for a game where I control how my in game character plays tennis by wiggling an analogue stick? No. Would I pay for one where I control it by making the kind of actions people make in tennis? Hell yeah, got one of those games for the Wii and one for PS Move. 3D I just don't like because I wear glasses to see and contact lenses piss me off.

 

[Aurgelmir]

The problem is that the second point on that sales graph is when the earthquake hit here in Japan. They've had news stories here showing that all electronic sales look like that now.

If you can find a similar graph for Western sales data I'd be convinced though.

Easy. Take a look at the hardware sales on the upper right side of the page and note the weekly difference.

3DS weekly change -21%
PSP weekly change +25%

This is the same period, worldwide. I do believe that people choose the PSP over the 3DS after it has been in the market for 2 months now. Sure, the variety of games is greater on the PSP, since the 3DS is new, but the customer isn't stupid. He can see where Nintendo is going in the future, that is, more 3D. Specifically, more REMAKES in 3D.

Those in the know, who look around the internet see Miyamoto dispensing pearls like "A Link to the Past remake in 3D would be very interesing to me". Oh really? How about a new game? Of all the games already out or soon to be released, nearly 80% is a remake or re-release of some sort with 3D added on top.

The difference between innovation and gimmicks is simple can be summed up by one little word: "Needs"

Market needs is what drives a success or failure, if the market feels the need for a device it will survive, but if the market never had any need for that product it will go down in history as a gimmick.

The only reason it MIGHT win through this time is that billions of dollars is being put into it, and the quality is better.

But the facts are still that a lot of people do not feel a need for 3D or motion controllers, in fact they feel both hampers their enjoyment of the medium.

Forcing a Need on the population hardly ever works out in the end.

PS: Sales figures isn't all, because the Wii sold a lot of hardware but very little games per machine.

I find it funny you know, because the first two paragraphs I've quoted can very well aply to HD as well. Don't you find it strange that the HD twins couldn't commercially surpass the "shitty, underpowered Wii" not once during this generation until AFTER it stopped getting games due to Nintendo's obsession with 3D?

Don't you find it strange that both Microsoft AND Sony were losing loads and loads of money on every console sold by trying to shove HD down people's throats?

Don't you find it strange that more and more game studios are closing down nearly every month this generation, even though they produce state-of-the-art HD pieces of art?

Have a look at THQ's revenue analysis

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/85930/thq-loses-1361m-in-the-year-to-march-2011-udraw-to-x360ps3/

and tell me, on which console did they actually make a profit? (Hint:Not on any HD platform) And this is THQ, a big software publisher, with money to burn. Others in their position would've long gone under. Even EA Sports is considering charging fees for their annual franchises. And the industry is going forward with HD? AHAHAHA!

Sure, a lot of people may not feel the need for motion controls (namely, PC gamers and those on the dumbed down PCs called HD twins), but a whole lot more of them DO and really enjoy it. Otherwise the Wii should belong dead and buried, especially with no games coming out for 6 months.

You MAY be right about the console/game ratio on the Wii, but what can we do? When companies treat us like third grade citizens, we don't buy their crappy games. Look at Dead Space Extraction, Soul Calibur Legends, TWO Lightgun Resident Evils, the list goes on. Now, I'm not saying I didn't enjoy some of these, but I'd much rather have a full-blown game than a cheap knockoff, which is why I bought the PC versions. And don't tell me it's about hardware constraints. They released Dead Space on the iPad ferchrsissakes.

Um what are you arguing for/against? You seem against 3D and against HD, and against Wii games?

The Graphics "need" has been there for ages, most people growing up with gaming from the 8bit era till today view graphics as an important evolution of their gaming experience. HD is just another way of saying higher resolution. Higher resolution has for a very very long time been the staple of computer gaming.

Sure HD might bring with it death to a lot of studios, but I would also put some of the blame there on the publishers who milk franchises dry faster than you can say motion controller.

But will putting even more expensive shit like motion controllers and 3D into the mix make things different?

 

[Flare Phoenix]

They don't fit into every game genre. You notice how the original poster cannot get off of his precious Pilot Wings? It's because he cannot come up with any other game where 3D has been beneficial to the experience. Sure, he keeps mentioning platformers but he has zero proof that 3D technology will actually make them better to play. It's going to do jack-all for 2D side-scrollers for one thing...

Seriously, this is starting to get a bit humorous. Everyone is presenting well reasoned arguments and all the original poster is doing is blocking his ears and going "lalalalalalalalalalalalalala".

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

They're both intrusive. 3D gives many people headaches, motion controls make actions require more time to complete an action, increasing the lag time between brain impulse and game action.

 

[MasterV]

Um what are you arguing for/against? You seem against 3D and against HD, and against Wii games?

The Graphics "need" has been there for ages, most people growing up with gaming from the 8bit era till today view graphics as an important evolution of their gaming experience. HD is just another way of saying higher resolution. Higher resolution has for a very very long time been the staple of computer gaming.

Sure HD might bring with it death to a lot of studios, but I would also put some of the blame there on the publishers who milk franchises dry faster than you can say motion controller.

But will putting even more expensive shit like motion controllers and 3D into the mix make things different?

I'm against self-destructive industry decisions. Motion controls do have their application, when said application is done correctly and not shoehorned into every gmame just because it "must". At the start Nintendo knew this and embraced it, which is why they advertised not only the motion controls, but the ability to plug in different controllers or even hold the wiimote sideways as well. Unforunately this line of thinking went to the dustbin, from 1st and 3rd party alike.

I agree that the graphics "need" has been there, but you know what? It wasn't always like that. When the NES came out it too was seen as "a step backwards" by the PC users of the time. None beyond them cared, and then we started climbing upwards in visual fidelity, which is not a bad thing by itself, mind you. Games were still relatively cheap to produce. My problem is when the cost of high-fidelity graphics (be they HD, 3D or whatever the hell) outweighs that of the game-maker's survivability. Look at Mass Effect 3. With every batch of new screens and info that emerges, it looks less and less like a unverse full of choices and more like Gears of Effect. I wonder why. Sure, some blame CAN be placed at the feet of the publishers, but most of it lies elsewhere.

Lastly, motion controls aren't that expensive to implement, given that you have a correct mindset. Look at the creators of No More Heroes. They are an low-budget studio, made a decent game with motion controls that actually worked and even though it didn't sell all that well (mostly due to the niche nature of the game), they still stand tall, because they didn't blow millions on licensing an HD graphics engine or even more on creating their own, proprietary one. Not only that, they even released a sequel (which also had other controller support) and 2 versions of the game on PS3, as well as developing an all-new game. Compare and contrast to Enslaved creators Ninja Theory.

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

Ah, no.

Firstly, Analogue sticks and trigger buttons changed gameplay by opening up avenues both of movement and world interaction beyond simply adding extra buttons.
Secondly, wiifit isn't new. In fact exercise gimmicks have been around for quite some time, starting with those little step-counters all the way to arcade games like DDR. The idea of using a game as a motivator for exercise/activity is not new.

What new gameplay titles did Analogue sticks and trigger buttons open? And what were they able to do that a mouse and keyboard/joystick couldn't?

Maybe, but I don't see how that's relevant to the argument. You can say that the graphics in Crysis aren't a feature, but you definitely can't call them a gimmick. And besides that, if HD is a gimmick or not does absolutely nothing for that statement in the thread title.

Fair enough. My point was that I find it ironic when the same people who tout HD complain about 3D being a gimmick because it "doesn't affect gameplay", but yes, I suppose you are right.

No. Go read the definition of the term "norm". Standard controllers were the norm ever since consoles were invented. They have nothing to depart from. They have always been there. Motion controls are the new thing (if you disregard several failed attempts in the past), not the other way around. I don't know who those "many people" are but I very much doubt they're more than a niche market. Again, this argument does nothing to cover the fact that motion controls are simplistic. After decades of standard controllers having more and more buttons to permit for more complex gameplay, it's THIS devolution that will become the standard? How can you possibly believe that.

Just because controllers are the norm doesn't mean they aren't awkward for some people. There are still some people that refuse to play FPS games with anything but a mouse and keyboard. That doesn't mean that controllers are a gimmick.

They may not be gimmicks but they are being used as gimmick. Also on the gimmick scale they are way more gimmicky than HD graphics and real physics, because those were up grades to the gaming tech that everyone can use. 3d Tvs are very expensive and for the most part the motion control for the PS3 and Xbox360 are gimmicks, because they were cash in add ons. I really don't think you know what a gimmick is.

What is a gimmick then?

The thing that amuses me is the fact the original poster can't get off his precious Pilot Wings. You've mentioned ONE game where you believe the 3D added to the experience and are trying to pass it off as 3D been essential to all games across the spectrum.

Honestly I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. You're thread title is that 3D and motion controls are not gimmicks, but the point you're trying to make is how we're all hypocrites for considering 3D and motion controls to be gimmicks but not high definition. High definition is a gimmick, but the reason people don't consider it to be as such is because it works. There are few games that don't benefit from having better graphics.

So honestly, what point are you trying to make here? Did you really just come here to call us all hypocrites because that is what it is starting to feel like.

My main purpose was to point out the irony in how quick some people are to call Nintendo's consoles gimmicks when many of the other consoles' hyped features don't really affect gameplay either. I think people have a tendency to label anything they don't like a "gimmick" without thinking whether or not it actually has a practical gameplay use.

For example, let's imagine that someone who only played games like Wii Fit and Pilotwings called HD and next-gen physics gimmicks. After all, how could either of those features improve the gameplay of Wii Fit? Obviously motion controls and 3D are where it's at because those are the things that affect the games he likes.

People would label him crazy of course, but I don't think people would realize how much they actually share in common with him. For the record, I actually do believe that HD and physics can affect gameplay, but when you look at the industry as a whole (IE not just AAA core games) their impact is much smaller than you'd think. There are many people out there for whom HD is just as superfluous as 3D is.

The biggest problem with the 3DS is this:
Nintendo says every game has to be perfectly playable without turning on 3D.

So ... by definition, they made it a gimmick.

So does the fact that PC games are made to be playable at low resolutions say the same for HD?

Actually, HD does offer gameplay advantages, like a physics engine or dual joysticks. With more pixels on screen you can create more detailed textures and increase drawing distances. Imagine any shooter, where you pick up a rifle and try to hit someone. With less pixels it would be harder to make out where and what the target is, so graphical fidelity can improve games more than just "it looks prettier".

I will agree that 3D and motion controls CAN be more than a gimmick, but it's still a lot on personal preference. I can't watch 3D because the fidelity is so weird it makes all the moving things have fuzzy lines around them, and I sold my Wii for and Xbox because playing call of duty with motion controls sucked. But that is just my opinion on the two.

Actually I agree.

I guess my whole point of this thread is not so much that 3D is great and HD is lame, it's that neither one is inherently more "gimmicky" than the other. They each have their place, although your personal preferences might cause you to prefer one over the other.

They are used as gimmicks therefore they are gimmicks.
They dont have to be but i doubt motion controls are gonna be big next gen and 3d is just an add on.

And aren't HD and physics gimmicks when they are used solely for eye candy?

ugh...

gim·mick
[gim-ik]
noun

1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.

2. a concealed, usually devious aspect or feature of something, as a plan or deal: An offer that good must have a gimmick in it somewhere.

3. a hidden mechanical device by which a magician works a trick or a gambler controls a game of chance.

Motion controls and 3D are ingenious, novel, and designed to attract attention and increase appeal. They are gimmicks. Deal with it.

I'm more objecting to the pejorative use of the term, IE "a useless extra".

Also, wouldn't HD and physics still fit the dictionary.com definition? Why don't people call those things gimmicks?

Basically, just because something is a gimmick doesn't mean it is automatically bad; the word just seems to carry a negative connotation.

I agree with this, actually. My OP was more meant for those who use it negatively.

I think I already covered this, but have many developers actually used this feature? I've played enough 3D-games-on-2D-screens where depth perception wasn't any kind of issue though - there's enough other cues. One-eyed people can still pass driving tests...

Yet people must pass a depth perception test to become a military pilot.

You're absolutely right: They aren't more gimmicky than HD graphics or realistic physics. But guess what? They aren't any LESS gimmicky, either.

Actually, I agree. I just focused on the other side of it to emphasize my point that 3D/motion controls aren't as gimmicky as people believe.

I'm not saying that makes it a gimmick. I'm saying that it really fucking sucks for me.

Can't disagree with that. Hey, at least you'd get twice as much battery time with your 3DS =)

As for motion controllers, we really haven't seen the Motion Controller Killer App. While that dance game is pretty big success, for the Kinect to become a Killer App, we have to see an easily copied trend with enduring popularity. Seeing how Guitar Hero spectacularly crashed recently, a new rhythm game is probably not it. And Nintendo, despite having the best selling console of this generation (and one of the better selling consoles in history) talks of the Wii almost as if it was a failure. The motion control games just haven't proven to be a dependable source of hit games.

I thought most people considered Wii Fit to be the motion-controller killer app?

And HD isn't exactly a dependable source of hit games either, especially if you look at how much more they are to develop.

Otherwise I pretty much agree.

Physics are a gimmick? Dr Freeman would like to have a word with you about that!

Man, if every game used physics as well as HL2 I would not have used that as an example in my post. =)

I still don't see why so many people believe this nonsense. Being able to see things more clearly and having a longer draw distance has certainly added a hell of a lot more to games than making everything look like paper cut-out bullshit ever will. In fact, it's gotten to the point for me where I feel safe in disregarding everything else someone has to say on the subject after they pull this useless argument out, because it shows how little understand they have of what HD quality graphics have done for gaming. And as an added bonus, you said that better physics don't makes games better either, so yeah, I'm quite content to assume that you really have no idea what you're talking about here.

Man. Sometimes I feel the same way about people that dismiss 3D/motion controls. =)

Honestly though, how often is pixel to pixel accuracy actually necessary in today's games? Most shooters (where it seems like it's be the most beneficial) have realistic bullet spread, so any extra accuracy is pretty moot. Unless you happen to be Quake 3 railgun fanatic, I don't really see it being a defining issue.

the thing is: and yahtzee fucking said this, is that ISN'T an upgrade. It's moving linearly while HD graphics and processing power clearly affected gameplay and made the game more immersive and changed what agame ultimately could BE.

You're dismissing shit for no reason.

Guy above me hit the nail on the head very hard and I'm pretty sure it blasted through the earth and is no in space somewhere....

And yet people still dismiss the practical applications of 3D and motion controls.

Alright, I'll answer both your queestions as to why both 3D and motion controls as they stand now are gimmicks.

3D: The most common argument I seein favour of 3D (or at least in defending it) is that its stupid to say that it has no purpose other than graphical improvement when HD graphics are something worth acheiving in games "Yet it only improves graphics". Heres the issue with that argument though. HD isn't simply some feature to make something look better for the sake of making a quick buck, it is rather a response to the increase in technological advancement. As years go on, the technology behind TVs increases, with picture quality being improved with each new addition. The problem with this though is that if we simply keep game engines at a bare minimum or old bones design, the quality of the game isn't going to look good. In some cases the graphics in the game would actually be worse on a better and newer TV as opposed to an older and less superior one. As such, HD graphics aren't simply just trying to make a game look "puurrty", it is trying to make the game look at least bearable. Further, any open-world game would not exist today if the advancement in graphics were not around, otherwise almost nothing would be renderable. Do you remember how games like the original Silent Hill series would have dense fog or total blackness in front of the player most of the time either in the open world town or open buildings? Theres a reason for that, and it isnt just an artistic one. It is because at the time it would've been impossible to actually render what the town would look like in all directions. Hell, look at the GTA series. Did you ever wonder why the first two games were top-down and the rest afterwards in 3D enviornments? Part of it was because they simply couldn't do the open world thing due to the graphical limitatins at the time.

So, games should be in HD now because we have HD TVs? Does that mean that once 3D TV become more common we should have 3D games?

3D however, unlike HD, does not have that purpose. 3D for the most part is not reactionary to the advancement of technology, it is rather a feature to make something look good for a quick buck. Think of it like this. While HD has proven that certain games don't work without it, 3D has yet to do that.

What games don't work without HD? I have a standard definition TV, and I have yet to see a game where my gameplay has been affected by the lack of resolution.

This isn't a matter though of it being too young. Both Sony and Nintendo have gone on record on saying that their 3D technology is not a mandatory thing, in that all games released either for the 3DS or games released with 3D compatibility can still play just the same with or without the 3D.

So since PC developers include the option to play their games at lower resolutions, does that make HD a gimmick?

Motion Controls: Whether or not you think the Wii has good games or if the Kinect and Move work, there is one thing that is undeniable: all three (all four if we include Sixaxis) have failed in proving that some games out there can only work with motion controls.

Wii Fit? Any of those dancing games?

Sounds like it's not so undeniable after all.

Much like 3D, the reason why motion controls can but don't work is because game makers aren't trying to make games that would only work with the feature but are rather trying to make games that have been made before but have the feature of motion controls. One could argue that analog sticks at the time may have had the same reaction, but consider this: analog sticks were meant for one type of game, games that took place in 3D environments as opposed to 2D ones. Analog sticks and 2D games often didn't work together all the time, so game makers didn't make 2D games that used analog sticks, they made 3D games that functioned properly only once analog sticks were introduced.

3D games functioned quite well with a mouse and keyboard.

Thats basically the crux of the whole gimmick thing. Both 3D and motion controls have yet to prove that they are integral for the existance of certain games, mostly because these features aren't trying to show a different set of games that would normally be unplayable without these features, they are trying to show how current games can work with these features, which brings he name gimmick: something that one can use but doesn't need to in order to still enjoy the game.

The above statement still applies to the use of HD and advanced physics in most games. I still don't see why motion controls/3D are all that different, especially given the other points I made above.

The difference between innovation and gimmicks is simple can be summed up by one little word: "Needs"

Fair enough. Very few games need HD or advanced physics, why aren't those also considered gimmicks?

Easy. Take a look at the hardware sales on the upper right side of the page and note the weekly difference.

http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly.php

(Silly me, forgot the link)

3DS weekly change -21%
PSP weekly change +25%

This is the same period, worldwide. I do believe that people choose the PSP over the 3DS after it has been in the market for 2 months now. Sure, the variety of games is greater on the PSP, since the 3DS is new, but the customer isn't stupid. He can see where Nintendo is going in the future, that is, more 3D. Specifically, more REMAKES in 3D.

Those in the know, who look around the internet see Miyamoto dispensing pearls like "A Link to the Past remake in 3D would be very interesing to me". Oh really? How about a new game? Of all the games already out or soon to be released, nearly 80% is a remake or re-release of some sort with 3D added on top.

Ah, good point.

Also, I agree with you that I'm pretty disappointed with the "remakes" direction that Nintendo seems to be taking with this. There are quite a few games in development that actually claim to use the added benefit of depth perception in gameplay (new Kingdom Hearts, Mario 3DS, some ghost hunter arg whose name escapes me), you don't really see much marketing for these titles.

em, graphical quality is subjective?

I agree, but not when the addition of an extra graphical feature has an impact on gameplay. IE, the different between color/monochrome graphics.

If you cannot judge distances without the pedsuo-3D then there's a major fault with the graphical design. Both 2D and 3D environment have their drawbacks which cannot be solved by the use of stereoscopic graphics, only Volumetric display would be able due to it's proper use(display) of 3 Dimensions in the real world.....Holographic principle not withstanding >.>

You are really making alot of assumptions which cannot be justified.

You're right that only a volumetric display would provide "true 3d", but that doesn't mean that stereoscopic graphics can't provide extra information about depth. I've read quite a few articles about how modern 3D works, too, and I've seen nothing to the effect of what you are suggesting.

I am prepared to accept that I'm making a faulty assumption here, but first you'll have to justify your own claims.

They don't fit into every game genre. You notice how the original poster cannot get off of his precious Pilot Wings? It's because he cannot come up with any other game where 3D has been beneficial to the experience. Sure, he keeps mentioning platformers but he has zero proof that 3D technology will actually make them better to play. It's going to do jack-all for 2D side-scrollers for one thing...

Seriously, this is starting to get a bit humorous. Everyone is presenting well reasoned arguments and all the original poster is doing is blocking his ears and going "lalalalalalalalalalalalalala".

Again, I feel the same way you do =)

There are other 3D games that seem like they'd benefit from the extra depth perception, but I haven't played them personally so I didn't think I should comment on them. Most of the games that actively claim to take advantage of 3D (as a gamplay mechanic) aren't coming out for 6 months still anyway. It makes sense too, when you consider that before the 3DS you really couldn't guarantee that your player would even have 3D hardware).

And I agree with you about 2D sidescrollers... unless... someone were to make a first person sidescroller! =)

I'm against self-destructive industry decisions. Motion controls do have their application, when said application is done correctly and not shoehorned into every gmame just because it "must". At the start Nintendo knew this and embraced it, which is why they advertised not only the motion controls, but the ability to plug in different controllers or even hold the wiimote sideways as well.

Totally agree with the above, which is partly why I have a problem with people that say 3D/motion controls/whatever will be a gimmick until we see a game that "needs" 3D/motion controls/whatever.

 

[Plurralbles]

MOuntain of quotes...

I just got back from Thor.

3D ruined the movie.

 

[mad825]

em, graphical quality is subjective?

I agree, but not when the addition of an extra graphical feature has an impact on gameplay. IE, the different between color/monochrome graphics.

If you cannot judge distances without the pedsuo-3D then there's a major fault with the graphical design. Both 2D and 3D environment have their drawbacks which cannot be solved by the use of stereoscopic graphics, only Volumetric display would be able due to it's proper use(display) of 3 Dimensions in the real world.....Holographic principle not withstanding >.>

You are really making alot of assumptions which cannot be justified.

You're right that only a volumetric display would provide "true 3d", but that doesn't mean that stereoscopic graphics can't provide extra information about depth. I've read quite a few articles about how modern 3D works, too, and I've seen nothing to the effect of what you are suggesting.

I am prepared to accept that I'm making a faulty assumption here, but first you'll have to justify your own claims.

This discussion has now gone off the rails.

You cannot seemly find a reason and it is stinking of zeal. Any question you have to ask me would relate to the paragraph I typed. I have nothing to justify nor am I making any assumption as I'm basing my idea on fact,I've backed my claims with evidence,VD breaks the final frontier of displaying digital objects in real-time.

My personal advice: do not act like a zealot.