Consoles Are Holding Gaming Back

[Olas]

I'm calling BS to this, I'm sick of hearing that more complex graphics equal better graphics. Some of the most beautiful games I've ever played came out for this guy.

For example:

Spoiler

Viewtiful Joe scrapped realism for style.

So did

Spoiler

Windwaker

But it's not all aesthetics either, some games genuinely managed to do more with less, like

Spoiler

Rogue Squadron II Rogue Leader

and

Spoiler

RE4

Honestly, I can't believe some people still actually judge graphics by whether they look "real" or not. Unless you're actually trying to make yourself forget you're playing a videogame, I don't see why that matters.

 

[Vegosiux]

I would also say that it is actually PC gaming that's holding gaming back or specifically lazy developers and lazy pc gamers.
The Wii brought along decent motions controls with the Wii plus and Apple pushed forward touchscreens with associated gameplay changes. While it is possible to have Wii controls and touchpads on the PC, they were neglected and the task fell to consoles.

Ever tried consistently using a touch-screen to work through something, even something simple? It's not cool and fancy like it looks in Minority Report. Your arms will start complaining, painfully, after a while.

 

[vasiD]

What do you think?

I couldn't agree more, and more so because my 2 year old computer has better specs than both "NextGen" consoles.

Now, I understand a lot of the cut backs, they're aiming to make a cheap piece of consumer electronics, it needs to be effective and affordable, and through that I really can understand their specs, but when I'm hearing reports that this generation will last for 10 years... I get a little pissed off.

I mean at-the-fucking-least if you want it to last ten years put 16GB of ram in there. Some people might say that's excessive, but this is fucking gaming, it's the only time you're going to use that much ram, and believe me when I say it CAN be used. Imagine Skyrim without any pop in, imagine loading screens becoming a rarity instead of the standard, and finally picture all the crazy shit they could toss in: absurd numbers of NPCs, Destruction physics on every object, ACTUAL PHYSICS SIMULATION SYSTEMS.

8GB is infuriating because it means there likely won't be any really interesting advances in tech in my opinion.

The rest I understand can be boosted through the solid unit cohesion that consoles get, but 8GB is 8GB, and it's not much in a world where games are 32+GB just for textures, sound, and code, not even counting the actual calculations that run through the code.


I understand some people may want to argue that 8GB is plenty of space and that most games now don't use that, but to me that's like saying "Well we don't need a space program, we didn't have one before". More importantly, yeah, we don't use that much now, but we don't have real water physics, air, vapor, and smoke physics, simulated gravity, or light physics...

Things that I personally want to see more than higher resolution textures or better poly counts.

 

[babinro]

I'm curious as to what the PC lifecycle would be without the existence of consoles.

MMO's are almost exclusively PC and yet very few of them push the limits of what a system can handle. I'd argue that a PC only environment would stagnate almost as much as a console one for the simple reason that the vast majority don't want to force their target market to upgrade in order to play. This creates a barrier to entry and costs sales.

The PC cycle would probably still be 4-6 years as a result with only a few niche titles pushing the boundaries.

 

[Vegosiux]

I mean at-the-fucking-least if you want it to last ten years put 16GB of ram in there. Some people might say that's excessive, but this is fucking gaming, it's the only time you're going to use that much ram, and believe me when I say it CAN be used.

Ever really done any heavy video editing? My experience anything less than 8GB is going to make it a pain because with longer videos all those programs are going to take quite a while to respond.

Gaming PCs are not the pinnacle of raw processing power generally; heavy-duty workstations are...

 

[vasiD]

I mean at-the-fucking-least if you want it to last ten years put 16GB of ram in there. Some people might say that's excessive, but this is fucking gaming, it's the only time you're going to use that much ram, and believe me when I say it CAN be used.

Ever really done any heavy video editing? My experience anything less than 8GB is going to make it a pain because with longer videos all those programs are going to take quite a while to respond.

Gaming PCs are not the pinnacle of raw processing power generally; heavy-duty workstations are...

Haha, actually I produce and master music, so I am aware of this. I was more talking about the AVERAGE user. Yes, techies like us can use up that much RAM just to amuse ourselves.

 

[Fidchell Attano]

What's holding gaming back is that they found that they can use a safety net to sell units rather than innovate and evolve to stay ahead of the competition.

 

[Dragonbums]

I couldn't agree more, and more so because my 2 year old computer has better specs than both "NextGen" consoles.

Not everyone has a two year old computer.
Case in point, I am typing to you right now on a 7 year old laptop, that manages to play Skyrim on the most abysmal settings( and still suffers frame rate drops) and can barely play Portal 2 without my computer reminding me that my video card is too shitty to really be playing a game like that.

This is the same scenario with a lot of computer users.
Many people, myself included have shit old computers. A fact that many PC gamers either completely ignore when making an argument, or claim that we have shit financial skills or stupid for not upgrading our computers(mainly on Kotaku)

I have games for the PC.
I can see the convenience of games on the PC.

However as of right now the graphics of the games I'm playing on my laptop are on par with the Gamecube half the time. The Skyrim that shows up on my computer, looks like a circus show to the Skyrims Let's Players are uploading on Youtube with their high end PC rigs.

Also you guys never mention the fact that most computers are used for more then gaming.
At least with a console, the machine can focus 100% of it's power on playing the game.

With a PC, you don't know what other uses the person has for it.
In my instance I use it for doing illustrations.
As such I have the entire Adobe Suite on it as well as a variety of medium to heavy weight art specific programs.

Other people may be in to making videos.
You'd be surprised just how fast video files can take up computer space.
Others music.

A PC can never- unless you have NOTHING ELSE IN IT devote 100% of it's power to games.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

I couldn't agree more, and more so because my 2 year old computer has better specs than both "NextGen" consoles.

Not everyone has a two year old computer.
Case in point, I am typing to you right now on a 7 year old laptop, that manages to play Skyrim on the most abysmal settings( and still suffers frame rate drops) and can barely play Portal 2 without my computer reminding me that my video card is too shitty to really be playing a game like that.

This is the same scenario with a lot of computer users.
Many people, myself included have shit old computers. A fact that many PC gamers either completely ignore when making an argument, or claim that we have shit financial skills or stupid for not upgrading our computers(mainly on Kotaku)

I have games for the PC.
I can see the convenience of games on the PC.

However as of right now the graphics of the games I'm playing on my laptop are on par with the Gamecube half the time. The Skyrim that shows up on my computer, looks like a circus show to the Skyrims Let's Players are uploading on Youtube with their high end PC rigs.

Also you guys never mention the fact that most computers are used for more then gaming.
At least with a console, the machine can focus 100% of it's power on playing the game.

With a PC, you don't know what other uses the person has for it.
In my instance I use it for doing illustrations.
As such I have the entire Adobe Suite on it as well as a variety of medium to heavy weight art specific programs.

Other people may be in to making videos.
You'd be surprised just how fast video files can take up computer space.
Others music.

A PC can never- unless you have NOTHING ELSE IN IT devote 100% of it's power to games.

More so than that, consoles have (or SHOULD have) operating systems designed SPECIFICALLY for gaming. They may do other things but gaming is there primary focus and thats what the system is optimized for. Compared to a PC where windows (or linux) has to be a jack of all trades by its very nature. The operating system there can't make assumptions about what you will do with it and so focus on that, it has to do everything and so master nothing.

Even my brand new computer with brand new copy of windows and all new games occasionally craps itself. My PS3 NEVER does, the only time I have ever had an issue with the PS3 was when one of the updates got corrupted because my partner was sucking up all the wifi when it was trying to download and that was fixable. Compared to the whole computer shiting itself on a yearly to 2 yearly basis and having to be rebuilt from scratch

 

[mike1921]

You know why graphics have been improving less and less recently? Because of a thing called diminishing returns. That's all.

The difference between an object with 100 polygons and one with 1000 is huge. The difference between an object with 100,000 polygons and 200,000 is negligible.

Consoles are in now way holding back gaming. Gaming is first and foremost about gameplay. A game which emphasis on graphics over gameplay is something which would work better as a CGI film than as a game.

Now imagine you have hundreds of units running about.

I would also say that it is actually PC gaming that's holding gaming back or specifically lazy developers and lazy pc gamers.
The Wii brought along decent motions controls with the Wii plus and Apple pushed forward touchscreens with associated gameplay changes. While it is possible to have Wii controls and touchpads on the PC, they were neglected and the task fell to consoles.

Are you calling us lazy for wanting a certain type of control system? Touchscreens are shit for a good number of games because of the lack of tactile confirmation that an action has taken place, wii controls are shit because they take you out of the experience by requiring exertion. I'm waiting for the Oculus Rift since that seems like an actually innovation that's actually superior to the old system.

 

[King Kazma]

Scuse me I'm just gona go play all my old games whos graphics are shit compared to todays but whos gameplay is just as good if not better in cases.

 

[zefiris]

Graphics don't matter, so consoles aren't holding games back.

Ultima Underworld II is still a better game than most modern western RPGs, despite the awful controls and the horrible 3D platforming. Until the point RPGs catch up to what we had 20 years ago as far as actual depth and reactivity goes, I don't see why specs matter anything.

The problem modern games have isn't tech, it isn't RAM, and it certainly isn't graphics/KI.
It's basic design that is simply shoddy. Why does Skyrim have less reactivity than early Ultima games? DOES. NOT. COMPUTE.

Scuse me I'm just gona go play all my old games whos graphics are shit compared to todays but whos gameplay is just as good if not better in cases.

Thank you. Seriously, THIS.

 

[Dragonbums]

I'm waiting for the Oculus Rift since that seems like an actually innovation that's actually superior to the old system.

I bet people one hundred fucking dollars that if Nintendo were to make up the Oculus Rift everyone would whine about how it is the ultimate form of gimmicks and point them to the failed versions of the 1990's.

Seriously.

The fact that your biggest gripe with motion controls is that you have to move is laughable.
I'm also willing to bet you will look more like a idiot using the Oculus Rift, then the Wii could ever make anyone.

Motion Controls- more bit of immersion into the game by attempting to allow you to use actions that will mimic your in game counterpart.
Everyone here calls it a gimmick, and complains about how much their arms hurt (I've seriously never had this issue using the Wii)
Arms tiring out also doesn't help our image in the physical fitness department.

Oculus Rift- A head gear set that allowed you to have your vision surrounded by the game to fully immerse yourself in the videogame world. Still requires you to use a controller(from my knowledge)
Is called the revolution of gaming.

 

[mike1921]

I'm waiting for the Oculus Rift since that seems like an actually innovation that's actually superior to the old system.

I bet people one hundred fucking dollars that if Nintendo were to make up the Oculus Rift everyone would whine about how it is the ultimate form of gimmicks and point them to the failed versions of the 1990's.

Seriously.

The fact that your biggest gripe with motion controls is that you have to move is laughable.
I'm also willing to bet you will look more like a idiot using the Oculus Rift, then the Wii could ever make anyone.

Motion Controls- more bit of immersion into the game by attempting to allow you to use actions that will mimic your in game counterpart.
Everyone here calls it a gimmick, and complains about how much their arms hurt (I've seriously never had this issue using the Wii)
Arms tiring out also doesn't help our image in the physical fitness department.

Oculus Rift- A head gear set that allowed you to have your vision surrounded by the game to fully immerse yourself in the videogame world. Still requires you to use a controller(from my knowledge)
Is called the revolution of gaming.

I'd take that bet. You know why? No one seems to have thought the DS was a shitty gimmick, not for most of it's life cycle at least, I'm fairly certain that was the first console to use a touch screen. That's because the dual-screen system is actually useful and motions are relatively small, even if they are bigger than normal controllers. It amazes me how people take wii-hate as nintendo hate when Nintendo came out with TWO consoles within 12 months of each other and people seemed to love the DS.

Who cares how you look? Did I ever say my problem with the wii is how you look?

Saying inherent problems with a type of system are laughable is a laughable statement in and of itself.

Motion controls wreck your immersion by causing sensation that cause you to think about your body more. It's not about arms hurting, you feel the weight of your arms of moving. Controllers, and keyboard and mouse, are so superior because the motions are almost all less than an inch so you're more likely to forget that you're using a controller. Maybe an Oculus Rift type system will make motion controls more viable by making you feel more like your sensations are the character's, but with a screen that is a distance from you like that, you can't have so many sensations outside of the screen tugging at your immersion. Also: Wii motion controls aren't perfect, when you make a big motion and it doesn't work the way you should , even if you were able to build up some immersion it was just sent through the paper shredder.

Yes, you still need to use a controller...or maybe keyboard and mouse work. I don't see why revolutions need to be changing control schemes, and we'll get a different control scheme that's not shit one day. I for one give it 10 years though.

 

[Dragonbums]

I'm waiting for the Oculus Rift since that seems like an actually innovation that's actually superior to the old system.

I bet people one hundred fucking dollars that if Nintendo were to make up the Oculus Rift everyone would whine about how it is the ultimate form of gimmicks and point them to the failed versions of the 1990's.

Seriously.

The fact that your biggest gripe with motion controls is that you have to move is laughable.
I'm also willing to bet you will look more like a idiot using the Oculus Rift, then the Wii could ever make anyone.

Motion Controls- more bit of immersion into the game by attempting to allow you to use actions that will mimic your in game counterpart.
Everyone here calls it a gimmick, and complains about how much their arms hurt (I've seriously never had this issue using the Wii)
Arms tiring out also doesn't help our image in the physical fitness department.

Oculus Rift- A head gear set that allowed you to have your vision surrounded by the game to fully immerse yourself in the videogame world. Still requires you to use a controller(from my knowledge)
Is called the revolution of gaming.

I'd take that bet. You know why? No one seems to have thought the DS was a shitty gimmick, not for most of it's life cycle at least, I'm fairly certain that was the first console to use a touch screen. That's because the dual-screen system is actually useful and motions are relatively small, even if they are bigger than normal controllers. It amazes me how people take wii-hate as nintendo hate when Nintendo came out with TWO consoles within 12 months of each other and people seemed to love the DS.

Who cares how you look? Did I ever say my problem with the wii is how you look?

Saying inherent problems with a type of system are laughable is a laughable statement in and of itself.

Motion controls wreck your immersion by causing sensation that cause you to think about your body more. It's not about arms hurting, you feel the weight of your arms of moving. Controllers, and keyboard and mouse, are so superior because the motions are almost all less than an inch so you're more likely to forget that you're using a controller. Maybe an Oculus Rift type system will make motion controls more viable by making you feel more like your sensations are the character's, but with a screen that is a distance from you like that, you can't have so many sensations outside of the screen tugging at your immersion. Also: Wii motion controls aren't perfect, when you make a big motion and it doesn't work the way you should , even if you were able to build up some immersion it was just sent through the paper shredder.

Yes, you still need to use a controller...or maybe keyboard and mouse work. I don't see why revolutions need to be changing control schemes, and we'll get a different control scheme that's not shit one day. I for one give it 10 years though.

And having a head gear on your head, moving your head around doesn't break you out of immersion?
Because if you are surrounded by the visuals of a videogame you have to be very conscious of your surroundings which could even be more breaking then just moving your arms in a swinging motion.
The Oculus Rift and the Wii's motion controls are both gimmicks in every sense of the word.

The "gimmick" with the Oculus Rift is you have a 360 vision of the video game environment.
The "gimmick" of the Wii is that the motions in real life affect the motions in the game.

Both of them bring something new to the gaming experience.
I'm not even going to bother with touch screens because that was going to be a mainstream thing anyway.

However motion controls are a "gimmick" because we labeled it as such.
Oculus Rift is "innovation" because we labeled it as such.
However someone else can twist that around and say the opposite and you can't really counter argue that point.

Personally I think both Motion controls and Oculus Rift bring something new to the table, and I have no ire towards any of them.
However I think it is pretty unfair to claim that one is the gimmick and the other is innovation because of a company name.

 

[mike1921]

I'm waiting for the Oculus Rift since that seems like an actually innovation that's actually superior to the old system.

I bet people one hundred fucking dollars that if Nintendo were to make up the Oculus Rift everyone would whine about how it is the ultimate form of gimmicks and point them to the failed versions of the 1990's.

Seriously.

The fact that your biggest gripe with motion controls is that you have to move is laughable.
I'm also willing to bet you will look more like a idiot using the Oculus Rift, then the Wii could ever make anyone.

Motion Controls- more bit of immersion into the game by attempting to allow you to use actions that will mimic your in game counterpart.
Everyone here calls it a gimmick, and complains about how much their arms hurt (I've seriously never had this issue using the Wii)
Arms tiring out also doesn't help our image in the physical fitness department.

Oculus Rift- A head gear set that allowed you to have your vision surrounded by the game to fully immerse yourself in the videogame world. Still requires you to use a controller(from my knowledge)
Is called the revolution of gaming.

I'd take that bet. You know why? No one seems to have thought the DS was a shitty gimmick, not for most of it's life cycle at least, I'm fairly certain that was the first console to use a touch screen. That's because the dual-screen system is actually useful and motions are relatively small, even if they are bigger than normal controllers. It amazes me how people take wii-hate as nintendo hate when Nintendo came out with TWO consoles within 12 months of each other and people seemed to love the DS.

Who cares how you look? Did I ever say my problem with the wii is how you look?

Saying inherent problems with a type of system are laughable is a laughable statement in and of itself.

Motion controls wreck your immersion by causing sensation that cause you to think about your body more. It's not about arms hurting, you feel the weight of your arms of moving. Controllers, and keyboard and mouse, are so superior because the motions are almost all less than an inch so you're more likely to forget that you're using a controller. Maybe an Oculus Rift type system will make motion controls more viable by making you feel more like your sensations are the character's, but with a screen that is a distance from you like that, you can't have so many sensations outside of the screen tugging at your immersion. Also: Wii motion controls aren't perfect, when you make a big motion and it doesn't work the way you should , even if you were able to build up some immersion it was just sent through the paper shredder.

Yes, you still need to use a controller...or maybe keyboard and mouse work. I don't see why revolutions need to be changing control schemes, and we'll get a different control scheme that's not shit one day. I for one give it 10 years though.

And having a head gear on your head, moving your head around doesn't break you out of immersion?
Because if you are surrounded by the visuals of a videogame you have to be very conscious of your surroundings which could even be more breaking then just moving your arms in a swinging motion.
The Oculus Rift and the Wii's motion controls are both gimmicks in every sense of the word.

The "gimmick" with the Oculus Rift is you have a 360 vision of the video game environment.
The "gimmick" of the Wii is that the motions in real life affect the motions in the game.

Both of them bring something new to the gaming experience.
I'm not even going to bother with touch screens because that was going to be a mainstream thing anyway.

However motion controls are a "gimmick" because we labeled it as such.
Oculus Rift is "innovation" because we labeled it as such.
However someone else can twist that around and say the opposite and you can't really counter argue that point.

Personally I think both Motion controls and Oculus Rift bring something new to the table, and I have no ire towards any of them.
However I think it is pretty unfair to claim that one is the gimmick and the other is innovation because of a company name.

No, moving your head doesn't really break your immersion because all you're seeing is the game world, it doesn't make you perceive much outside of the game world. I'm assuming the head gear is light, if it's heavy then it'll likely break you out. It takes a lot more to break your immersion when all you see is the game. Maybe moving your head will break you out, but when the game reacts as such, and all you see is the game so it's easier to perceive your sensations as the character's sensations it seems much easier to be immersed in that then making full swings or wrestling with a motion sensor and being immersed in that.

To me the difference between gimmick and innovation is that an innovation is a clear improvement. Gimmicks are novelty for novelty's sake. A gimmick is dildo that you can use as a pen, an innovation is a dildo that vibrates. In terms of core games the wii controller is a gimmick, maybe it's innovative for casual games but those aren't really the games you get immersed in.

Saying it's because of company name is a strawman. Like I said, people love the DS. They love it. Saying that was GOING TO BE a mainstream thing is irrelevant. It was the first console to do that and in 2005 touchscreens weren't ubiquitous. Past innovation is still innovation whether it caught on or was ignored.

 

[Dragonbums]

I'm waiting for the Oculus Rift since that seems like an actually innovation that's actually superior to the old system.

I bet people one hundred fucking dollars that if Nintendo were to make up the Oculus Rift everyone would whine about how it is the ultimate form of gimmicks and point them to the failed versions of the 1990's.

Seriously.

The fact that your biggest gripe with motion controls is that you have to move is laughable.
I'm also willing to bet you will look more like a idiot using the Oculus Rift, then the Wii could ever make anyone.

Motion Controls- more bit of immersion into the game by attempting to allow you to use actions that will mimic your in game counterpart.
Everyone here calls it a gimmick, and complains about how much their arms hurt (I've seriously never had this issue using the Wii)
Arms tiring out also doesn't help our image in the physical fitness department.

Oculus Rift- A head gear set that allowed you to have your vision surrounded by the game to fully immerse yourself in the videogame world. Still requires you to use a controller(from my knowledge)
Is called the revolution of gaming.

And yes, if you can't see the outside world that can break you out of immersion.
Why? Because depending on environment if you are unable to detect who is around you in the real world you can get into accidents.

I'd take that bet. You know why? No one seems to have thought the DS was a shitty gimmick, not for most of it's life cycle at least, I'm fairly certain that was the first console to use a touch screen. That's because the dual-screen system is actually useful and motions are relatively small, even if they are bigger than normal controllers. It amazes me how people take wii-hate as nintendo hate when Nintendo came out with TWO consoles within 12 months of each other and people seemed to love the DS.

Who cares how you look? Did I ever say my problem with the wii is how you look?

Saying inherent problems with a type of system are laughable is a laughable statement in and of itself.

Motion controls wreck your immersion by causing sensation that cause you to think about your body more. It's not about arms hurting, you feel the weight of your arms of moving. Controllers, and keyboard and mouse, are so superior because the motions are almost all less than an inch so you're more likely to forget that you're using a controller. Maybe an Oculus Rift type system will make motion controls more viable by making you feel more like your sensations are the character's, but with a screen that is a distance from you like that, you can't have so many sensations outside of the screen tugging at your immersion. Also: Wii motion controls aren't perfect, when you make a big motion and it doesn't work the way you should , even if you were able to build up some immersion it was just sent through the paper shredder.

Yes, you still need to use a controller...or maybe keyboard and mouse work. I don't see why revolutions need to be changing control schemes, and we'll get a different control scheme that's not shit one day. I for one give it 10 years though.

And having a head gear on your head, moving your head around doesn't break you out of immersion?
Because if you are surrounded by the visuals of a videogame you have to be very conscious of your surroundings which could even be more breaking then just moving your arms in a swinging motion.
The Oculus Rift and the Wii's motion controls are both gimmicks in every sense of the word.

The "gimmick" with the Oculus Rift is you have a 360 vision of the video game environment.
The "gimmick" of the Wii is that the motions in real life affect the motions in the game.

Both of them bring something new to the gaming experience.
I'm not even going to bother with touch screens because that was going to be a mainstream thing anyway.

However motion controls are a "gimmick" because we labeled it as such.
Oculus Rift is "innovation" because we labeled it as such.
However someone else can twist that around and say the opposite and you can't really counter argue that point.

Personally I think both Motion controls and Oculus Rift bring something new to the table, and I have no ire towards any of them.
However I think it is pretty unfair to claim that one is the gimmick and the other is innovation because of a company name.

No, moving your head doesn't really break your immersion because all you're seeing is the game world, it doesn't make you perceive much outside of the game world. I'm assuming the head gear is light, if it's heavy then it'll likely break you out. It takes a lot more to break your immersion when all you see is the game. Maybe moving your head will break you out, but when the game reacts as such, and all you see is the game so it's easier to perceive your sensations as the character's sensations it seems much easier to be immersed in that then making full swings or wrestling with a motion sensor and being immersed in that.

To me the difference between gimmick and innovation is that an innovation is a clear improvement. Gimmicks are novelty for novelty's sake. A gimmick is dildo that you can use as a pen, an innovation is a dildo that vibrates. In terms of core games the wii controller is a gimmick, maybe it's innovative for casual games but those aren't really the games you get immersed in.

Saying it's because of company name is a strawman. Like I said, people love the DS. They love it. Saying that was GOING TO BE a mainstream thing is irrelevant. It was the first console to do that and in 2005 touchscreens weren't ubiquitous. Past innovation is still innovation whether it caught on or was ignored.

In your opinion.
The Oculus Rift is only as innovative and revolutionary as the audience deems it.
It can easily be brushed off as a gimmick.

How many people would care about the Oculus Rift?
How many people would want to use it?
How many people can't use it?

Some people have motion sickness.
Others can be easily disoriented.
Other players are just put off at the prospect of being surrounded by gaming visuals and losing any sort of awareness to the outside environment.

The Oculus Rift can very easily become the next Wii.
Everyone will get it because your "surrounded" by the game, and then by the end of the generation the fad will fade away and people will go to something else.
I do not see future consoles utilizing the Oculus Rift heavily. Similar to the sense of how the Wii U downsized on using motion controls.

 

[mike1921]

I'm waiting for the Oculus Rift since that seems like an actually innovation that's actually superior to the old system.

I bet people one hundred fucking dollars that if Nintendo were to make up the Oculus Rift everyone would whine about how it is the ultimate form of gimmicks and point them to the failed versions of the 1990's.

Seriously.

The fact that your biggest gripe with motion controls is that you have to move is laughable.
I'm also willing to bet you will look more like a idiot using the Oculus Rift, then the Wii could ever make anyone.

Motion Controls- more bit of immersion into the game by attempting to allow you to use actions that will mimic your in game counterpart.
Everyone here calls it a gimmick, and complains about how much their arms hurt (I've seriously never had this issue using the Wii)
Arms tiring out also doesn't help our image in the physical fitness department.

Oculus Rift- A head gear set that allowed you to have your vision surrounded by the game to fully immerse yourself in the videogame world. Still requires you to use a controller(from my knowledge)
Is called the revolution of gaming.

And yes, if you can't see the outside world that can break you out of immersion.
Why? Because depending on environment if you are unable to detect who is around you in the real world you can get into accidents.

I'd take that bet. You know why? No one seems to have thought the DS was a shitty gimmick, not for most of it's life cycle at least, I'm fairly certain that was the first console to use a touch screen. That's because the dual-screen system is actually useful and motions are relatively small, even if they are bigger than normal controllers. It amazes me how people take wii-hate as nintendo hate when Nintendo came out with TWO consoles within 12 months of each other and people seemed to love the DS.

Who cares how you look? Did I ever say my problem with the wii is how you look?

Saying inherent problems with a type of system are laughable is a laughable statement in and of itself.

Motion controls wreck your immersion by causing sensation that cause you to think about your body more. It's not about arms hurting, you feel the weight of your arms of moving. Controllers, and keyboard and mouse, are so superior because the motions are almost all less than an inch so you're more likely to forget that you're using a controller. Maybe an Oculus Rift type system will make motion controls more viable by making you feel more like your sensations are the character's, but with a screen that is a distance from you like that, you can't have so many sensations outside of the screen tugging at your immersion. Also: Wii motion controls aren't perfect, when you make a big motion and it doesn't work the way you should , even if you were able to build up some immersion it was just sent through the paper shredder.

Yes, you still need to use a controller...or maybe keyboard and mouse work. I don't see why revolutions need to be changing control schemes, and we'll get a different control scheme that's not shit one day. I for one give it 10 years though.

And having a head gear on your head, moving your head around doesn't break you out of immersion?
Because if you are surrounded by the visuals of a videogame you have to be very conscious of your surroundings which could even be more breaking then just moving your arms in a swinging motion.
The Oculus Rift and the Wii's motion controls are both gimmicks in every sense of the word.

The "gimmick" with the Oculus Rift is you have a 360 vision of the video game environment.
The "gimmick" of the Wii is that the motions in real life affect the motions in the game.

Both of them bring something new to the gaming experience.
I'm not even going to bother with touch screens because that was going to be a mainstream thing anyway.

However motion controls are a "gimmick" because we labeled it as such.
Oculus Rift is "innovation" because we labeled it as such.
However someone else can twist that around and say the opposite and you can't really counter argue that point.

Personally I think both Motion controls and Oculus Rift bring something new to the table, and I have no ire towards any of them.
However I think it is pretty unfair to claim that one is the gimmick and the other is innovation because of a company name.

No, moving your head doesn't really break your immersion because all you're seeing is the game world, it doesn't make you perceive much outside of the game world. I'm assuming the head gear is light, if it's heavy then it'll likely break you out. It takes a lot more to break your immersion when all you see is the game. Maybe moving your head will break you out, but when the game reacts as such, and all you see is the game so it's easier to perceive your sensations as the character's sensations it seems much easier to be immersed in that then making full swings or wrestling with a motion sensor and being immersed in that.

To me the difference between gimmick and innovation is that an innovation is a clear improvement. Gimmicks are novelty for novelty's sake. A gimmick is dildo that you can use as a pen, an innovation is a dildo that vibrates. In terms of core games the wii controller is a gimmick, maybe it's innovative for casual games but those aren't really the games you get immersed in.

Saying it's because of company name is a strawman. Like I said, people love the DS. They love it. Saying that was GOING TO BE a mainstream thing is irrelevant. It was the first console to do that and in 2005 touchscreens weren't ubiquitous. Past innovation is still innovation whether it caught on or was ignored.

In your opinion.
The Oculus Rift is only as innovative and revolutionary as the audience deems it.
It can easily be brushed off as a gimmick.

How many people would care about the Oculus Rift?
How many people would want to use it?
How many people can't use it?

Some people have motion sickness.
Others can be easily disoriented.
Other players are just put off at the prospect of being surrounded by gaming visuals and losing any sort of awareness to the outside environment.

The Oculus Rift can very easily become the next Wii.
Everyone will get it because your "surrounded" by the game, and then by the end of the generation the fad will fade away and people will go to something else.
I do not see future consoles utilizing the Oculus Rift heavily. Similar to the sense of how the Wii U downsized on using motion controls.

I'm well aware that innovation is subjective. That's why I'm arguing the superiority of the Rift in terms of core games. The way I see it, the reason core gamers mostly rejected the wii is because it wasn't truly beneficial to most people. Yes it can be brushed off but the way I see it, it seems that gamers have fairly reliable taste when it comes to things that manage to get into the limelight.


This all started with you talking about how PC kills innovation, I don't see why the focus would be on how much consoles utilize the rift. I don't care how much the consoles use it. If it's successful on PC that might cause the consoles to pick it up though.

 

[Vegosiux]

Other players are just put off at the prospect of being surrounded by gaming visuals and losing any sort of awareness to the outside environment.

And this, this is my main reservation about it. My brain has trouble enough dealing with the sensory input the "current" reality is handing me. Bringing a "different" reality into the equation, confusing my brain into thinking that one is "real" too (because, in the end, what makes it real or not is precisely the ability of your brain to filter through sensory input) is something I really do not wish to subject myself to. With the added quirk that the "current" reality won't wait for me while I'm "fully immersed" in the other one.

I doubt any human being can utilize VR equipment for an extended period of time without going a tad bonkers.