3D and motion controls aren't gimmicks.

[hallow eyes]

A "Gimmick" is a trick or device used to attract business or attention. Both motion controls and 3D fall neatly into that catogory. Lets just drop the idea that they do anything other than sound cool and earn there creators money while still failing to live up to any of the hype.

 

[Freechoice]

I can't see in 3D with or without the stupid glasses.

It's a fuckin' gimmick.

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

This is a bigass wall of text!
any way, hd is just a clearer version of the already established format, 3d is a slight change of format.
physics added depth to a game. motion control cant really dothis(for me at least) because i become more aware that im playing a game-especially if that means flailing a stick around that has worse response than a regular controller

Hehe, yeah sorry, guess I should've cut it down into a few posts. Is that against the forum rules?

Anyway, I'm sorry, but I still don't really see your logic. So HD eye-candy isn't a gimmick because it's evolution, whereas 3D eye candy is a gimmick because it's actually something new?

And what about when physics are used only to augment graphics (as is frequently the case)?

MOuntain of quotes...

I just got back from Thor.

3D ruined the movie.

Fair enough, 3D is a gimmick for movies. I don't see why the same has to be true for games, especially when an added dimension could have an effect on gameplay.

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.

I don't mean to sound like a zealot, I just honestly don't understand the logic behind your claims.

Why isn't a player able to more accurately judge depth with stereoscopic 3D?

What assumptions am I making that can't be justified?

 

[Romblen]

HD and realistic physics are a permanent addition. We don't get tired of it looking nice, and we don't get tired of objects being affect by physics. We do however get tired of head ache inducing 3d that costs too much and we definitely get tired of motion controls that are just, well silly.

 

[Phlakes]

You can't compare HD graphics and physics to those things. Improving the quality of graphics is just that, improvement, and make games better to look at and more realistic. Physics make for even more realism and interaction with the environment, with things like the Gravity Gun.

But 3D will never be major innovation because all it does is simulate a 3D effect, and isn't worth the trouble it takes to use it right and the effects it can have. Motion controls don't improve gameplay YET, because as far as we've gotten, a controller is faster, easier, and more precise, but there's room for innovation there. Once there's a much better version of Kinect or some kind of VR that lets you control everything with simple motions, then it won't be a gimmick anymore. Now, it's just a controller with some "shake the nunchuck to throw grenade" bullshit.

 

[Kahunaburger]

3-D is like virtual reality in the 90's, or, well, 3-D before that. It never caught on because people don't like to put something bulky and eye-straining on their face to watch a movie or play a game.

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

HD and realistic physics are a permanent addition. We don't get tired of it looking nice, and we don't get tired of objects being affect by physics. We do however get tired of head ache inducing 3d that costs too much and we definitely get tired of motion controls that are just, well silly.

I don't get tired of 3D because I've never gotten a headache from it, and I don't get tired of well-made motion controls. I do get tired of developers assuming I have an HD TV and making their menus in the smallest font possible (even though the rest of the screen is blank), and I do get tired of developers spending so much time and money on their physics engine-based eye candy when they could have spent it on something I can actually use strategically in a fight.

HD graphics: make your game not look like shit,

Doesn't affect gameplay?

and it's easier to see shit on screen

Can also be achieved by better level/character design.

Physics: some games are built around physics.

And some are built around motion controls.

Physics engines are needed for immersion and fun.

"Needed" is a pretty strong word. Are you saying that games didn't have immersion and fun before physics engines?

They aren't thrown in as a token gameplay option, they are core parts of the game.

Again, also true of many motion controlled games

They also don't require you to wave your arms around like an idiot

I don't think I've played a single motion control game that required this... to be fair though I don't have a kinect =)

 

[Kahunaburger]

I don't get tired of 3D because I've never gotten a headache from it, and I don't get tired of well-made motion controls. I do get tired of developers assuming I have an HD TV and making their menus in the smallest font possible (even though the rest of the screen is blank), and I do get tired of developers spending so much time and money on their physics engine-based eye candy when they could have spent it on something I can actually use strategically in a fight.

You don't - lots of people do. We don't yet have 3-D technology that can work for more than 60%-70% of the population, and until we do we shouldn't base games around it. Also, I personally wouldn't want to go hunting for several sets of 3-D glasses whenever I want to play Smash Bros/Halo/etc. - it's already hard enough to find enough controllers

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

You don't - lots of people do. We don't yet have 3-D technology that can work for more than 60%-70% of the population, and until we do we shouldn't base games around it. Also, I personally wouldn't want to go hunting for several sets of 3-D glasses whenever I want to play Smash Bros/Halo/etc. - it's already hard enough to find enough controllers

You do, lots of people don't.

I fully respect that you don't personally experience any benefit from 3D, but I think there's a difference between saying "that feature is worthless to me" and "it's a gimmick with no practical use". Just because you don't see the gameplay applications of 3D doesn't mean there aren't any.

Now, let's take a look at motion controls:
They break immersion when you need to flail your dumbass around.

Again, good thing I've never played a motion controlled game that required me to do that.

They were only made to be different from other controllers which work fine.

How would you use a normal controller for a game like Wii Fit?

Every games journalist I've heard speak about motion controls on the Wii says they are unresponsive and the game would work better with the Gamecube controller.

Then you haven't been reading enough reviews. Even critics on this site have said otherwise =)

How do games use motion controls? As stupid as fucking possible. Wii fit was built around them, but is that shit a member of the pantheon of great games? fuck no. It's built around a gimmick.

Well, sales and critical reviews would say otherwise. Wii Fit might not be your cup of tea, but anyone with enough knowledge in game design can appreciate it for what it set out to do.

Motion controls can't evolve, they can only get more precise. Physics engines can get more realistic, or they can get crazier. They build puzzles around them, they can evolve gameplay itself. All a god damned waggle can do is just that: waggle.

Motion controls can get more precise or more abstract and subtle. Thinking that "waggle" is the extent of what they can do is no different from saying ragdoll death animations are the extend of physics engines.

As for HD graphics: what Wii games look as good as Gears, Uncharted, Crysis, or any other generic to great 360/PS3/PC game? NONE.

I don't care about looks. I still enjoy games with Atari style graphics. That's why HD graphics are as gimmicky to me as motion controls are to you.

 

[Chibz]

Now, let's take a look at motion controls:
They break immersion when you need to flail your dumbass around. They were only made to be different from other controllers which work fine. Every games journalist I've heard speak about motion controls on the Wii says they are unresponsive and the game would work better with the Gamecube controller.

How do games use motion controls? As stupid as fucking possible. Wii fit was built around them, but is that shit a member of the pantheon of great games? fuck no. It's built around a gimmick.

Motion controls can't evolve, they can only get more precise. Physics engines can get more realistic, or they can get crazier. They build puzzles around them, they can evolve gameplay itself. All a god damned waggle can do is just that: waggle.

As for HD graphics: what Wii games look as good as Gears, Uncharted, Crysis, or any other generic to great 360/PS3/PC game? NONE.

Firstly, motion controls can add a fair bit to a game when used properly. Monster Hunter 3 using wiimote & nunchuke for bowgunners? Brilliant. Donkey Kong Country Returns with Wiimote & Nunchuke? Also brilliant. I also played New Super Mario Bros Wii, which worked well. In none of those games did I find myself "flailing myself around". Maybe you just don't know how to operate your equipment properly?

As for graphics? I'd actually claim that Monster Hunter 3 looks superior to Shitbrowncementgrey of war.

 

[Arqus_Zed]

Sorry, still gimmicks to me.

3D
The whole '3D'-thing is just a silly graphical effect. It doesnt' make things more realistic (like HD graphics or realistic physics) in order to present an almost life-like experience. And neither does it offer an art-direction that wasn't possible before. In short, in doesn't add anything of real value. Sure, some will say it's more 'immersive', but really, I haven't noticed it. Unless immersion feels like a headache...

I got drawn much more into the simple 2D movie Grave of the Fireflies than I got into Avatar. It's all about story and characterization, not the impression of stuff flying at you.

Motion controls
Well, this just screams 'gimmick'. With all those worthless pieces of plastic they try to sell you to put your Wii-mote in? Bah. I've got a Wii myself and more than once I just didn't feel like playing because I knew I couldn't just sit down and relax. Seriously, what does this really add to the experience? Are there any gameplay aspects that are truly impossible to port to a normal controller?

Most people I know who have a Wii, played it intensively the first two months after the purchase. Then it's either into the dusty closet or onto eBay. It's interesting till the novelty wears off.

 

[Giralin]

3D is just a pain in my ass gimmick, because I ware glasses, and there aren't any 3D glasses (at least that I've seen) that are made to go around regular glasses; my choice is simple though ability to see > 3D. On top of that, the very thought of needing to ware some accessory to game is stupid, and you better have plenty of extra pairs for when your buddies come over, otherwise it you wont be seeing them around as often. The final important point (and one repeatedly stated in this thread) most 3D will be done badly, and will therefor be immersion braking, not building (just look at Yahtzee's review of Killzone 3). For 3D to be something reasonable a form of 3D that doesn't need glasses AND isn't very picky about the angel you look at the screen, but that still leaves out people that get sick from looking at 3D and people that have problems with their eyes that can't view 3D, and it doesn't guarantee that people will do it right; holograms solve all these problems though.

 

[Chibz]

3D is just a pain in my ass gimmick, because I ware glasses, and there aren't any 3D glasses (at least that I've seen) that are made to go around regular glasses; my choice is simple though ability to see > 3D. On top of that, the very thought of needing to ware some accessory to game is stupid, and you better have plenty of extra pairs for when your buddies come over, otherwise it you wont be seeing them around as often. The final important point (and one repeatedly stated in this thread) most 3D will be done badly, and will therefor be immersion braking, not building (just look at Yahtzee's review of Killzone 3). For 3D to be something reasonable a form of 3D that doesn't need glasses AND isn't very picky about the angel you look at the screen, but that still leaves out people that get sick from looking at 3D and people that have problems with their eyes that can't view 3D, and it doesn't guarantee that people will do it right; holograms solve all these problems though.

First of all, you're in luck Sonny-Jim. The 3DS doesn't require you to wear glasses for it to work.

Secondly, I wouldn't quote Yahtzee. He's easily the least knowledgable person on this site regarding games I can think of. I'm in the works of making a video that is simply a parade of his failures in a row. Will be fun.

One thing I don't get is people complaining about headaches from 3D. I've never experienced such a thing, and I'm the person with severe light sensitivity.

 

[Giralin]

3D is just a pain in my ass gimmick, because I ware glasses, and there aren't any 3D glasses (at least that I've seen) that are made to go around regular glasses; my choice is simple though ability to see > 3D. On top of that, the very thought of needing to ware some accessory to game is stupid, and you better have plenty of extra pairs for when your buddies come over, otherwise it you wont be seeing them around as often. The final important point (and one repeatedly stated in this thread) most 3D will be done badly, and will therefor be immersion braking, not building (just look at Yahtzee's review of Killzone 3). For 3D to be something reasonable a form of 3D that doesn't need glasses AND isn't very picky about the angel you look at the screen, but that still leaves out people that get sick from looking at 3D and people that have problems with their eyes that can't view 3D, and it doesn't guarantee that people will do it right; holograms solve all these problems though.

First of all, you're in luck Sonny-Jim. The 3DS doesn't require you to wear glasses for it to work.

Secondly, I wouldn't quote Yahtzee. He's easily the least knowledgable person on this site regarding games I can think of. I'm in the works of making a video that is simply a parade of his failures in a row. Will be fun.

One thing I don't get is people complaining about headaches from 3D. I've never experienced such a thing, and I'm the person with severe light sensitivity.

The technology used in the 3DS is picky about the angel you look at it, not as much as Yahtzee wants you to think, but it can't work on anything other then a portable, because portables are the only thing you can know without any doubt where the viewer is.

Yahtzee dose raise a very valid point about the bad 3D in Killzone 3; don't dismiss what I'm referencing just because the source is from an extreme cynic and a person with ridiculously high standards.

There are some people that get headaches/ sickness from 3D, not many, but there is no reason they should be ignored

 

[Chibz]

There are some people that get headaches/ sickness from 3D, not many, but there is no reason they should be ignored

Sure there is. The 3D isn't essential to enjoy the product, after all. If you don't like the 3D, or it hurts your head... You can turn it down (or off). Also, as previously mentioned, many people can't "see the difference" HD makes. Should they be ignored?

As for Yahtzee, it's not that he's cynical or has "high standards". You'd be thinking of ME there. It's that he's woefully ignorant regarding gaming in general, and that greatly harms his credibility. This is a guy who doesn't know that differentiating between "critic" and "reviewer" itself is laughable: they're synonymous.

 

[Giralin]

There are some people that get headaches/ sickness from 3D, not many, but there is no reason they should be ignored

Sure there is. The 3D isn't essential to enjoy the product, after all. If you don't like the 3D, or it hurts your head... You can turn it down (or off). Also, as previously mentioned, many people can't "see the difference" HD makes. Should they be ignored?

You missed the meaning of what I said. There is no reason that people that have problems watching 3D should be brushed under the carpet and forgotten. 3D should never be mandatory for things that support it.

 

[Xanadu84]

It's not that they are gimmicks by nature, they just are most commonly used as gimmicks. Motion controls could innovate play experiences for certain games, but usually, they replace pressing x repeatedly with waggling the controller repeatedly. Or even worse, make extended quick time events. Same deal with 3D. The extra use of Depth could change the approach to movies, games, etc, at least for certain ones. They end up usually just making a game like any other, and then putting the subject in the foreground.

 

[Zeekar]

Well, they are all fads by definition, but that isn't nearly as negative a term as it is taken as. A fad is only something that booms in initial popularity but falls back down to earth over time. This says nothing of the quality of the fad, only that it will eventually be required to stand on it's own and not just it's popularity over time. Gimmick on the other hand implies only an illusion of quality by the inclusion of more and more "meaningless" features -- I sort of see 3D in that light, but not motion controls. Motion controls still have far to go, and I can think of several applications when paired with other theoretical products that we'll hopefully have in the future.

Even currently, I can think of several ways that current Wii controls could be used, but aren't at the moment in any game that I know of. Yes, there are games that cannot exist without these controls and I can see them being incredible.

Yes, I'm also being purposely vague because I still have pipe-dreams of creating these things myself, hehe.

3D on the other hand excludes too many people to be meaningful to future generations. There may be a handful of good 3D games, but when the fad ends, I don't see it going far.

It's been said before, but HD is gimmicky, but not a gimmick by nature nor a fad. We're always going to be looking for higher definition displays because clearer graphics are always going to have greater potential immersion by giving you clearer graphics at larger resolutions. Blurry, muddy textures do distract, though HD will only flaunt poor design wherever it appears.

For sake of TL;DR, we're done here.

 

[Diligent]

...Shigeru Miyamoto has mentioned that the reason we had to wait until Mario 3DS to see the return of the raccoon suit is because the powerup was simply too difficult to use in a 3D environment on 2D screens.

What? Wasn't the racoon suit for flying and hovering back down slowly?

Mario 64 - Flying Cap
Mario Sunshine - All of it, with your water jetpack.
Mario Galaxy - Bee suit

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

It's not that they are gimmicks by nature, they just are most commonly used as gimmicks. Motion controls could innovate play experiences for certain games, but usually, they replace pressing x repeatedly with waggling the controller repeatedly. Or even worse, make extended quick time events. Same deal with 3D. The extra use of Depth could change the approach to movies, games, etc, at least for certain ones. They end up usually just making a game like any other, and then putting the subject in the foreground.

I pretty much agree actually. My OP was more directed at people who consider 3D/motion controls as "gimmicks by nature".

...Shigeru Miyamoto has mentioned that the reason we had to wait until Mario 3DS to see the return of the raccoon suit is because the powerup was simply too difficult to use in a 3D environment on 2D screens.

What? Wasn't the racoon suit for flying and hovering back down slowly?

Mario 64 - Flying Cap
Mario Sunshine - All of it, with your water jetpack.
Mario Galaxy - Bee suit

In an interview I read he seemed to suggest that it was more difficult because the raccoon suit is based on angular momentum rather than true flying like the examples above. If you remember the raccoon suit flight is more like a really long jump or gliding, so I supposed it'd make sense that depth could play a bigger role in its control.