Dev Says 3D, Not Move, is the "Big Thing" For Shooters
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
3D for FPS is pretty slick, having tried it myself. Makes things that much more immersive. Also, it actually helps gameplay a little, since depth perception obviously helps you guage distances and so on.
It was a giant bolded title statement, that's a lot more important than about 90% of the crap people post here, stop being a dick, what have YOU contributed?Tankichi said:
"That right there is the big thing," he added, "not waving my arms around."
More half-wits that don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
For the last time, MOTION CONTROLS DO NOT EQUAL ARM FLAILING! Any developer that thinks this should go on everybody's ignore list. What a fricken moron. Aiming a gun is now "waving my arms around?" That's like saying nobody wants to use their computer because they don't want to drag a mouse around! In fact, moving a mouse requires much more effort than the slight twitches of the wrist required for shooting games.
I'm all for 3d, but I think that the onscreen pointer is much better for shooting games than an analogue stick is, (because it is....in every way) and for a developer to come out and pick graphics over game control (even if it is in the name of immersion) is pathetic and kinda frightening.
More half-wits that don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
For the last time, MOTION CONTROLS DO NOT EQUAL ARM FLAILING! Any developer that thinks this should go on everybody's ignore list. What a fricken moron. Aiming a gun is now "waving my arms around?" That's like saying nobody wants to use their computer because they don't want to drag a mouse around! In fact, moving a mouse requires much more effort than the slight twitches of the wrist required for shooting games.
I'm all for 3d, but I think that the onscreen pointer is much better for shooting games than an analogue stick is, (because it is....in every way) and for a developer to come out and pick graphics over game control (even if it is in the name of immersion) is pathetic and kinda frightening.
Well seeing as how the OP can edit his title, Tankichi has contributed more than you...danpascooch said:
3D won't be big until it doesn't cost thousands of dollars to implement. By then this fad of 3D may have blown over.
FPS + 3D TV = Kids developing a thousand yard stare.
I was playing a 3d game that's demoed at the store I work at and I noticed how my eyes would actually focus as if I was really looking way into the distance, I thought that would be cool for an FPS then thought about the thousand yard stare thing.
I was playing a 3d game that's demoed at the store I work at and I noticed how my eyes would actually focus as if I was really looking way into the distance, I thought that would be cool for an FPS then thought about the thousand yard stare thing.
I... you... What?FredTheUndead said:
Gameplay is what MAKES a video game! It's all well and good have fantastic graphics, but if there isn't a decent story to drive the game, what's the point?
OT: 3D is possibly the WORST idea this century. Most of my friends can't watch a 3D movie because it makes us sick. Not to mention that if you aren't affected by motion sickness, it's going to be the most expensive update ever. I'd prefer the challenge of Move/Kinect than the annoyance of 3D.
of course it would be the innovation that requires little or no adaption on the part of developers. Imagne if devlopers really wanted to make games that used motion controls, whole new genres could be created. But they don't, they'd rather upgrade graphics ad nauseum, despite the fact move ius celarly perfect for shooters. Although the developers of some crappy little downloadable cod rip off can hardly count as indicitive of the whole developing community.
3D is a fad that will die out, hopefully so will large studios that spend to much money on crap....
How do you think it looks to someone who comes to the Escapist for the first time and sees a giant news title misspell "shooters".Tankichi said:
You think they give a damn about your post trying to start an argument with me? Get off your pedestal
Its not, it just, not. 3D is a gimmick. It doesnt improve the experience at all, it just makes things blurry. Why not improve on the graphics some more instead?
I'll probably get flamed for saying this but: Move is great for FPS.
Playing MAG with the Move borders almost on unfair towards other players with a regular controller; honestly it's really good once you get the hang of it.
And tiring? Well, if slightly moving your wrist makes you break out in sweat then I guess it'll be tiring, otherwise I am pretty sure people will be fine lol
About 3D for FPS: meh. Better visuals are always nice. But is 3D 'better'? It surely is more expensive, but better? I dunno. Last time I checked gameplay and game mechanics make an FPS game. Counter Strike wasn't as successful as it was because it looked pretty (maybe it still is to a degree? dunno, but I hope you guys get what I mean)
Playing MAG with the Move borders almost on unfair towards other players with a regular controller; honestly it's really good once you get the hang of it.
And tiring? Well, if slightly moving your wrist makes you break out in sweat then I guess it'll be tiring, otherwise I am pretty sure people will be fine lol
About 3D for FPS: meh. Better visuals are always nice. But is 3D 'better'? It surely is more expensive, but better? I dunno. Last time I checked gameplay and game mechanics make an FPS game. Counter Strike wasn't as successful as it was because it looked pretty (maybe it still is to a degree? dunno, but I hope you guys get what I mean)