3D and motion controls aren't gimmicks.

[IvoryTowerGamer]

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 find both to be gimmicks because, while some people do enjoy them, I don't see them as the next big thing in gaming. Sure, the Wii has sold massively but I don't ever forsee a scenario where motion controls and 3D technology take over gaming as we know it. Technically though, anything new introduced that isn't widely accepted is considered to be a gimmick. I'm sure there were people going "oh this internet thing is just a gimmick!".

Also, I don't like 3D technology because, well, it's been around since like forever and everyone is trying to market it as the next innovation for movies. So basically, yes both of them are gimmicks as they are now. Either people will work out how to use them properly or they'll eventually disappear into the night.

Basically this. Motion controls and 3d are gimmicks AS THEY ARE. Wii bowling is in the "uncanny valley" of actions. Its sort of like bowling but really not. For a start, I bowl with a nice heavy ball not a tiny bit of plastic. 3d isn't actual 3d it just kind of looks a bit 3d.

Now, give me a game that projects a 3d hologram into the room and the controller feels like a bowling ball until you let go when it ceases weighing anything and I will say you are on to something.

This is a fair argument, although again I think the same could be said about most games' use of physics and HD.

I'm struggling to see your logic here. The Wii and 3Ds cannot be seen as gimmicks because you believe something else to be a gimmick. It's called personal opinion. If you think the Wii and 3Ds are the greatest things ever, great, but don't try to come on here telling us we should feel the same way...

I suppose my argument is more along the lines of "If you think the Wii and 3DS are gimmicks, you must also believe the PS3 and Xbox are gimmicks". I just find it really hypocritical that someone can complain that the Wii's motion controls don't add anything to gameplay, and then in the same breath complain about the lack of HD graphics. I don't mind if people actually think the Wii and 3DS are gimmicky, but I do think it's fair to criticize the irony in their opinions.

 

[MasterV]

I don't know that you can use that argument without also dismissing things like tradtional controllers (I know many people that can't use traditional controllers due to disabilities, but can use motion controls), HD (people with certain vision problems can't perceive the difference under normal viewing conditions), and even sound.

Also, I think implementation is a part of it as well. My 3DS has never bothered my eyes, but I get headaches when I watch 3D in movies.

They actually play tested a tanuki suit in Mario 64, but it didn't work out due to problems with depth perception. You're right that he could've included it in other 2D games, but it still wouldn't be a new gameplay mechanic. It Mario 3DS it will obviously play differently from how we originally experienced the power-up.

Ah, my friend. Traditional controls are another topic altogether. If you want, make it and I can comment on that there. There's a lot to say (none of it favourable) about the "evolution" of controllers. I wasn't aware that people had problems with HD visuals, so I stand corrected. Sound and hearing impairments (and the lack of subtitles in many, MANY games) is also another big topic which is not the point of this thread.

Implementation may play a role, but that doesn't change the fact that people's reaction to stereoscopic 3D generally isn't favourable.

Hmmm, I don't buy that Tanuki suit in Mario 64-depth perception story. If it was such a big problem, why add the wing cap? I know I had problems judging the correct distance trying to hit the center the coin rings in Bob-omb's battlefield. And, sorry, but why do we need new gameplay mechanics? Mario Galaxy 2 added what new gameplay mechanic exactly? Instead of adding gameplay mechanics to established franchises, why not do what they used to do in their NES/SNES games and make a new GAME (F-Zero, Metroid, Starfox are good examples of this) out of it?

 

[Sieggy]

Because that kind of '3D' causes headaches and seizures?

That aside, I wonder how much Nintendo pays you do say this. Did you just make this so you'll rack up posts?

Seriously now, having '3D' is meaningless if people isn't going to enjoy the thing. Which they aren't. Our brain are not meant to see things floating in midair like that, it leads to depression and hallucinations.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

I'm struggling to see your logic here. The Wii and 3Ds cannot be seen as gimmicks because you believe something else to be a gimmick. It's called personal opinion. If you think the Wii and 3Ds are the greatest things ever, great, but don't try to come on here telling us we should feel the same way...

I suppose my argument is more along the lines of "If you think the Wii and 3DS are gimmicks, you must also believe the PS3 and Xbox are gimmicks". I just find it really hypocritical that someone can complain that the Wii's motion controls don't add anything to gameplay, and then in the same breath complain about the lack of HD graphics. I don't mind if people actually think the Wii and 3DS are gimmicky, but I do think it's fair to criticize the irony in their opinions.

In my opinion, games should be sold on their gameplay and story. The reason why motion controls and 3D technology feels gimmicky is because they aren't adding anything to the gameplay and story. You could argue HD graphics do add to the story, but it's easy to see why people consider them to the gimmicks. I've never cared much about graphics so I don't really notice it all that much.

Though I wouldn't say the PS3 and Xbox as a whole are gimmicks. I'm a little confused about what you mean by physics though.

 

[WolfEdge]

How is HD graphics a gimmick, it doesn't affect gameplay but it makes most games look smoother

but 3D just ruins graphics for a gimmick

How is 3D graphics a gimmick, it doesn't affect gameplay but it makes most games look three-dimensional.

Your words, not mine.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Actually this is probably the best argument I've seen against 3D and motion controls so far. My only comment is that immersion is a highly subjective quality, and I don't know that you could definitively use it to label something gimmicky. Core gamers, for example, obviously think motion controls break immersion, but for your everyday person traditional controllers are much more of a deal breaker.

In fact, I know many people who actually have their immersion broken by HD graphics and physics due to the uncanny valley phenomenon. To them, hyper-realistic game is much more alienating than something like Wii Sports because they instantly compare it to real life. Something with more abstract graphics (like disembodied mii characters) doesn't have that problem, and in fact the players become more involved due to the customization options.

If you've ever read "Understanding Comics", it's the same principle as why it's easier to identify with a cartoony character than a realistically drawn one.

I should verify, that by "high definition," I mean pixel-to-pixel definition, not the, say, polygon count of character models and such. Team Fortress 2 wouldn't look as good as it does if it weren't utilizing top-tier HD graphics, and visuals benefit enormously from the crispness to them that only HD can provide. Also, the entrance of the Uncanny valley is a tricky place to actually verify objectively, because everyone draws their line at different points. I for one think LA Noire looks creepishly unreal, while others cite it as the first title they've seen that crawls successfully out the other side.

Immersion can also work the other way, I think. If you're told it's just a game, it won't be a problem when you're doing things you can only do in a game - Wii Sports' not-quite-right control motions are a good example. No-one can really complain "this isn't how you hold a tennis racket!" because it's a game. You aren't being convinced otherwise. Lack of "immersion" can work in a game's favour this way. That also goes to say, "yes... this is a gimmick guys. But it is fun, isn't it?" on behalf of the game.

How is HD graphics a gimmick, it doesn't affect gameplay but it makes most games look smoother

but 3D just ruins graphics for a gimmick

How is 3D graphics a gimmick, it doesn't affect gameplay but it makes most games look three-dimensional.

Your words, not mine.

Because, for the most part, jagged, unsmooth frames and framerates are a bigger concern than missing a third dimension. The frame-by-frame progression is just a little more important a hurdle to overcome than if those frames are rendered so they stick out of the flat screen. 'Tis be why traditionally animated films don't "pull you out of the experience" any more than a live-action film.

 

[Cavan]

You want arguments against 3D? It gives people headaches and motion sickness, requires you to downgrade your picture quality to achieve it and is about as 3D as me reading a pop up kids book. It also makes it difficult to focus on the actual depth of the field of vision you're expected to focus on, because everything is either VERY FOREGROUND or VERY BACKGROUND and the contrast is so vivid that you can't really guess much more than that. That messes with any illusion of spacial awareness I might have.

As for motion controls, it's unreliable, requires more space to be done properly than most people have, is nothing like any logical action in reality i've ever come across (my ability to play wii golf actually improved by getting drunk) and generally lowers your ability to play the game. If I wanted games to be more difficult in a really frustratingly pointless way where I know I could be doing it properly but choose not to then I will sit on my sofa upside down and let all the blood flow into my skull.

As they stand they don't offer anything to improve things, I think 3D (as in this form of tricking your depth perception into seeing 3D and not any method of creating real 3D which would be awesome) should just give up and die because it has always annoyed me, but motion controls just feel like they're in their teething stages.

As for the next innovation, if people are taking suggestions I would like curved screens that compliment my field of vision please, i'm used to it but still feel like playing an FPS game is like putting a windowframe over your eyes.

 

[Trolldor]

3D is just a gimmick.

For one, it actually forces the eye to do something it did not evolve to do, which is really quite bad for you. It's like bending a joint in the wrong direction.
Secondly, it adds nothing. Depth perception works for VR games, and games using 3D models as opposed to a 3D screen already add perception through design.

Motion Controls are just a gimmick because not a single motion control has - yet- added anything to the industry. We aren't seeing new forms of gaming because of motion control, we are seeing old forms of gaming with a new control scheme.

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

Oh and you mention ONE instance where 3D technology MIGHT be benefical to ONE power up in ONE game and declare that 3D technology is beneficial to the ENTIRE platformer genre? Right...

Most platformers rely on spacial mechanics of some sort. If you can't see how depth perception would benefit every game in the genre go read up about some of the other problems Mario 64 had in translating the engine into a 3D world.

Ah, my friend. Traditional controls are another topic altogether. If you want, make it and I can comment on that there. There's a lot to say (none of it favourable) about the "evolution" of controllers. I wasn't aware that people had problems with HD visuals, so I stand corrected. Sound and hearing impairments (and the lack of subtitles in many, MANY games) is also another big topic which is not the point of this thread.

I think it's relevant. I'm quite interested in what you have to say.

Implementation may play a role, but that doesn't change the fact that people's reaction to stereoscopic 3D generally isn't favourable.

Based on what? People's reactions on the Internet? Sales seem to paint a different picture, as they did with motion controls.

Hmmm, I don't buy that Tanuki suit in Mario 64-depth perception story. If it was such a big problem, why add the wing cap? I know I had problems judging the correct distance trying to hit the center the coin rings in Bob-omb's battlefield.

Essentially the wing cap was a compromise because the tanuki suit's flight was actually more angular-based than the "airplane style" of the wing cap. If you remember the tanuki suit's mechanics it's more like a long, controlled jump than true flight.

But, I can't find the article I read this in, so if you don't want to take my word for it I don't blame you.

And, sorry, but why do we need new gameplay mechanics? Mario Galaxy 2 added what new gameplay mechanic exactly? Instead of adding gameplay mechanics to established franchises, why not do what they used to do in their NES/SNES games and make a new GAME (F-Zero, Metroid, Starfox are good examples of this) out of it?

I agree with you here, but I don't really see it as a reason why we can't also have mechanics based on 3D.

Because that kind of '3D' causes headaches and seizures?

Normal graphics can cause the same problems. Ever notice that warning on the first page of the instruction manual?

 

[mad825]

The "3D" is not 3D but actually 2D therefore it cannot add nothing new or innovate to game-play. It's a Gimmick and a fad in one pot.

motion controls increases the amount of time to complete an action, an HCI hell. It's not a gimmick but definitely a fad.

3D adds greater depth perception. How does this not add anything to flight games or platformers?

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

 

[Phishfood]

HD is not in the same category as 3d. We always had a number of pixels, now we have more and call it HD. Its not a new feature just an improvement on an old one.

Sure, some of the same arguments apply - an episode of friends for example is not funnier or better by being in HD or 3d.

 

[Trolldor]

HD is not in the same category as 3d. We always had a number of pixels, now we have more and call it HD. Its not a new feature just an improvement on an old one.

Sure, some of the same arguments apply - an episode of friends for example is not funnier or better by being in HD or 3d.

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).

 

[Sieggy]

It's like a normal screen and a shaky screen, smart guy.

 

[tahrey]

In and of itself they aren't gimmicks, no, but the vast majority of games where either or both show up, they are used as an afterthought and really don't add anything, nor would playing the game without either option subtract anything.

The problem as I see it is that there's still currently no good, practical, cheap way of making them work properly (counterexample: dual shock - a couple of miniature analogue joysticks (proven, reliable, cheap technology) and small motors with different sized cam-weights (ditto) located respectively in the natural resting position of the player's thumbs (practical) and in the controller "wings" where the vibration can be directly transmitted to their palms (ditto).

So far it seems for motion and 3D you can have two of those features at best, but typically only one. Until that happens, you can't have games where it's forced as the only controller option for a wide variety of games (as dualshocks rapidly became with later PSX games, and were the default for PS2, for example) - and I don't just mean the showcase launch titles (Wii Sports, Kinectimals etc). And until THAT happens, the feature will only ever be a gimmicky add-on, because you have to make the core game compatible with falling back to 2D and/or regular button-bashing / stick pushing controls.

Generally speaking, I view 3D as something I shouldn't expect anything from, so I can be forever pleasantly surprised when it's actually used to enhance the experience. This has thus far only happened in movies, and only when implemented by Pixar.

I have to take a polar opposite stance. If it's in there, I want it to be used. At the very least in a clever, subtle way to enhance a feeling of "being there"; better, to actually be a proper part of the game mechanic somehow, e.g. having to shoot/avoid things that appear at certain distances but may be at entirely different scales or decorated in otherwise illusory colours & patterns, so the usual 2D depth queueing tactics we've become unwittingly used to in games (distant things are darker/greyer, any particular item only comes in one discrete size, shadows are always cast regardless of the lighting if they're necessary to locate something as being at a particular point on the ground if it's capable of flight or otherwise ambiguous) just wouldn't work and binocular vision has to take charge.

And along with that I must say Toy Story 3 was an utter let down in terms of both immersive 3Dness and doing anything "spectacular" with it... in fact it felt flat a lot of the time. I could watch it in 2D and not have lost anything from the deal... unlike the presumably much cheaper (and less-experienced-team) Despicable Me which would lose more than just its obvious 3D-jokes in the credits from being depth flattened.

Tron Legacy was a bit naff in that regard too (ignoring its other, catastrophic failure to have a second act between the first and third), vs Avatar (and Star Trek, too) being excellent spokesmovies for the effect being worth the eyestrain. Maybe it's just a Disney-conglomerate thing? They've done excellent 2D for so long, they just can't think in three dimensions any more.

The example 3DS games I had a tinker with on a local chain store's display were sort of halfway between: the effect was palpable and impressive, but the game didn't seem to be compromised in any way by flicking the switch to "3D OFF".

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Are people actually trying to say that HD affects gameplay any more than 3D or motion controls? This is hilarious.

 

[tahrey]

Are people actually trying to say that HD affects gameplay any more than 3D or motion controls? This is hilarious.

Depends on the game, really.

Some simplistic arcade game or racer or whatever, I wouldn't be bothered sitting at SD or significantly less (or for the most detailed ones, maybe ED, i.e. SD rez but progressive and with square pixels).

But there's plenty others - shooters, strategy games for example - where you wouldn't put up with 640x480-ish on a PC monitor any more, so why should you be stuck at it (possibly even in interlace mode) on a console? 1:1 rez on a typical laptop screen counts as 720p-class resolution these days after all, it's not unusual. Show 848x480 on it and you'd definitely notice a loss in clarity.

 

[MasterV]

Sales seem to paint a different picture, as they did with motion controls.

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.

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.

 

[Aurgelmir]

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).

With 3D in particular, I'm surprised how quickly people were able to dismiss it as a "meaningless graphical upgrade" without thinking about how an added perception on depth can add to gameplay. For example, I never particularly liked the Pilotwings series before because I always found it difficult to accurately judge distances on a 2D screen. The 3DS has fixed this problem wonderfully, and it's a shame that the rest of the game doesn't stand up to the brilliant use of that mechanic. Similarly, 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. At the very least that's two genres (flight sims and platformers) where the gameplay will directly benefit from 3D. Can you honestly say that HD graphics has affected gameplay in even one genre?

I hate to turn this into another casual vs hardcore rant, but it seems to me like that is really where the "gimmick" line is drawn. Take motion controls and next-gen physics for example. For every shovel-ware party game that takes advantage of the "waggle" controls, there's an asinine shooter that wastes its physics engine on making more detailed explosions. Heck, I can't even think of a shooter that uses physics in gameplay without resorting to copying HL2's gravity gun (and even then they seem to use it simply as a "physics object gun" rather than a tool to strategically manipulate your environment with. So why is it that physics are still considered a game-changing feature, whereas motion controls are just a gimmick? I honestly can't see any gameplay difference between the two aside from the fact that one is generally used in "hardcore" games whereas the other is more associated with "causal" games.

Well Motion controllers and 3D are currently very gimmicky because they are used poorly.
I will use the new Thor movie as an example on how 3D is just a gimmick:
I have seen this Movie twice now in 3d (awesome movie), and I have concluded that the movie did not give me any new previously unfelt experience.
But I actually believe that 3D CAN change the future of gaming, as long as some of the hurdles are overcome.
Right now 3D either require glasses or a 3DS. the 3DS system is not simple to translate over to a TV (Due to sitting angles etc), but it might be transfered to PC screens. My biggest gripe is that we are excluding a LARGE portion of the market with current 3D technologies, as a lot of people lack the ability to view it properly or get sick from doing so.
So why charge more for something less people can enjoy?

But you had two good examples of games where 3D can improve gameplay, but the 3D depth of field isn't always good, and I suspect distances might still be hard to judge in platformers (just a thought, might not be true)

As for motion controllers:
I personally feel they are still a gimmick, as they add a fun feature to the platform, but also exclude my favorite feature of console gaming: Relaxing on my couch while playing.

Morion controllers require me to often stand up and be active. As much as being active is a good thing it is not the prime reason I game, so if all consoles had motion controls only I would probably not play them as much.


So all in all I feel 3D and Motion controls do not add any needed features as of now.

As for HD and physics:
This is to do with detail in a game. HD means you get better graphics, which in turns mean better detail in the picture.

Physics engines means that you can more accurately depict how something interact with the environment, which lets you create fun game play mechanics.

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.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Are people actually trying to say that HD affects gameplay any more than 3D or motion controls? This is hilarious.

Depends on the game, really.

Some simplistic arcade game or racer or whatever, I wouldn't be bothered sitting at SD or significantly less (or for the most detailed ones, maybe ED, i.e. SD rez but progressive and with square pixels).

But there's plenty others - shooters, strategy games for example - where you wouldn't put up with 640x480-ish on a PC monitor any more, so why should you be stuck at it (possibly even in interlace mode) on a console? 1:1 rez on a typical laptop screen counts as 720p-class resolution these days after all, it's not unusual. Show 848x480 on it and you'd definitely notice a loss in clarity.

That's not affecting gameplay though. Motion controls can affect gameplay speed, especially in shooters. 3D has less applications, but can be used to judge depth, which could also affect gameplay (more so than HD at least). Making things look nice and clear doesn't really affect the gameplay.

I was playing a 4v4 on Halo 3 at a friend's house on Monday, and our team was on a HDTV with an RGB scart cable, while the other was on a HDMI setup. We still won most of our matches.

 

[Trolldor]

Are people actually trying to say that HD affects gameplay any more than 3D or motion controls? This is hilarious.

Depends on the game, really.

Some simplistic arcade game or racer or whatever, I wouldn't be bothered sitting at SD or significantly less (or for the most detailed ones, maybe ED, i.e. SD rez but progressive and with square pixels).

But there's plenty others - shooters, strategy games for example - where you wouldn't put up with 640x480-ish on a PC monitor any more, so why should you be stuck at it (possibly even in interlace mode) on a console? 1:1 rez on a typical laptop screen counts as 720p-class resolution these days after all, it's not unusual. Show 848x480 on it and you'd definitely notice a loss in clarity.

That's not affecting gameplay though. Motion controls can affect gameplay speed, especially in shooters. 3D has less applications, but can be used to judge depth, which could also affect gameplay. Making things look nice and clear doesn't really affect the gameplay.

I was playing a 4v4 on Halo 3 at a friend's house on Monday, and our team was on a HDTV with an RGB scart cable, while the other was on a HDMI setup. We still won most of our matches.

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.