On Kinect and PlayStation Move

Pebkio

The Purple Mage
Nov 9, 2009
780
0
0
Foxtrot: Neither will exist in our lifetime. Just... not going to happen, be sad. However, there will be advancements in our lifetimes, and those advancements might kill off one way or another.

For instance, reading brain-waves is getting to be more exact as the years go by... and one day... they'll find a cheap way to connect leads to a bunch of different spots on our heads and have an avatar respond.

We, as a species, will be very bad at playing games this way... at least at first. To top that off, the cheap versions they use won't be as precise as needed and the games will probably be very gimicky. Worse yet: There won't be any force feedback... except maybe we'll get chairs that react to video games. It will be complete shit and I'll support it all the way.

Meanwhile, they'll have invented a suit that is suspended in mid-air and translates your movements into the movements of your avatar, and it'll be good and I'll still hate the damn thing.
 

MikeTheElf

New member
Aug 22, 2008
88
0
0
theklng said:
MikeTheElf said:
theklng said:
MikeTheElf said:
Games are meant to be gimmicky. They're built around capturing your attention at least long enough for one to buy it, to feed the parties involved with its production and sale. Immersion is just a bonus that everyone feels entitled to. To use an allegory: food works the same way; one can sustain oneself on food that doesn't taste good, but once one tastes more enticing food, one expects more out of all future foods. Everyone was content when 8-bit games were on the market, just as everyone was content pumping quarters into arcade machines for hours or days.

Entertainment has always been a contest as to what can hold one's attention; this results in a battle to see who can produce the nicest gimmick, game or service. This means that when one company does something that is the slightest bit profitable, all companies in the field will do the same; CDs supplanted cartridges, DVDs CDs, Blurays are apparently next. People are attracted to the shiniest object, and the Wii outsold both PS3 and 360. Motion control was naturally the next step. No one cares about innovation; they all want money.
i beg to differ.

while some may consider games mere entertainment that are ultimately gimmicky, you are forgetting that those same gimmicks lessen the attention captive period for a person. a gimmick is essentially a superfluous element intended to attract immediate attention, but failing to keep interest once discovered. examples of such would be diamonds reflecting light or racing stripes on a car.

gimmicks don't make games interesting; the rules of play and game mechanics do that. a golden controller won't make the game you play any more fun (though perhaps you will get a feeling of material accomplishment owning one).
1- Once the game is purchased, the developer has succeeded; a game does not need to hold attention for the developer to succeed; it needs to hold attention for the game to be considered 'good.'

2- Gimmicks make the games interesting enough from a graphical or interface standpoint. For example: 3D makes people think that the game is inherently more shiny graphics-wise. Lots of people are only concerned with the lustre of their polygons, and many more won't admit that having good graphics is one of their priorities for a game. The fact of the matter is people are drawn to shinier objects, thus interest is drawn when something newer and shinier comes out. This is why HDTV is big, and this is why consoles use disc-based games as opposed to cartridge-based ones.

3- The controller actually can influence the ammount of enjoyment one gets from a game. I enjoy certain controllers over others, and certain button layouts to others. For example: I prefer PS3 controllers over 360, because of the joystick placement, and because the PS3 controller feels more comfortable. I dislike the GameCube controller for the same reason; I just don't find it comfortable. Some of the Wiimote attachments also feel more natural; MarioKart is much more enjoyable with the Wiimote wheel attachment. The controller takes care of the extrinsic factors which affect gameplay, enhancing the gaming experience, and in some instances increasing my level of enjoyment.

so you're saying that the game with the best graphics and bad game mechanics will always have more people playing than a game with excellent game mechanics and worse graphics?

and you are wrong: once a game is purchased, a game needs to succeed. otherwise, the corporate reputation of the game studio/publisher is going down the drain. we've got plenty of real life examples doing this (a good one being daikatana). you're essentially talking out of your ass here.
No, I'm saying that the human race is attracted to shiny objects. I didn't say more people would play games that look nicer; I said more people would be attracted to purchase games that look nicer. Of course people are also going to look into gameplay mechanics, but even then: novelty sells. The newer the stimulus, the more attracted to it humans will be. THAT is why gimmicks sell in the first place. If they look cool, people want them.

You obviously think that everyone looks into the game studio or publisher of the game, or even cares to remember it. Let me list some demographics that more often than not don't pay attention:
1- Children of parents with expendable income - Spoilt children generally love to waste money on things that look shiny. If you were to tell me that these parents research the games they buy for their children, I'd call bs on you faster than you called on me.
2- Casual Gamers - These sort of gamers are into the gimmicky stuff. Whether or not the company has made bad games ultimately has no bearing on the gimmick-drawn crowd.
3- People with expendable incomes - Lots of people I know love having lots of games. Some people don't trust what the read or hear in internet reviews and want to try games out for themselves, or maybe they want to give companies more than one chance at making a good game.
4- Magpies - As stated numerous times: people are drawn to new and shiny things. If it looks good, some people will look into it, others will just buy it (see 'people with expendable incomes')

Lastly, you appear to forget that opinions are subjective. Games are not factually considered 'good' or 'bad'; the verdict is up to the gamer. There are billions of people in the world; it would be talking out of your ass to say that there isn't a market for everything.
 

theriddlen

New member
Apr 6, 2010
897
0
0
I agree with Yahtzee - controllers that utilize the break-ur-tv-with-pad mechanics suck! Also, today's 3D is fail. Even after watching a 3D movie in cinema eyes tend to pain. And in games, that you play 8 hours a day? Eyesfallingoutofsockets-tastic!
 

theklng

New member
May 1, 2008
1,229
0
0
MikeTheElf said:
No, I'm saying that the human race is attracted to shiny objects. I didn't say more people would play games that look nicer; I said more people would be attracted to purchase games that look nicer. Of course people are also going to look into gameplay mechanics, but even then: novelty sells. The newer the stimulus, the more attracted to it humans will be. THAT is why gimmicks sell in the first place. If they look cool, people want them.

You obviously think that everyone looks into the game studio or publisher of the game, or even cares to remember it. Let me list some demographics that more often than not don't pay attention:
1- Children of parents with expendable income - Spoilt children generally love to waste money on things that look shiny. If you were to tell me that these parents research the games they buy for their children, I'd call bs on you faster than you called on me.
2- Casual Gamers - These sort of gamers are into the gimmicky stuff. Whether or not the company has made bad games ultimately has no bearing on the gimmick-drawn crowd.
3- People with expendable incomes - Lots of people I know love having lots of games. Some people don't trust what the read or hear in internet reviews and want to try games out for themselves, or maybe they want to give companies more than one chance at making a good game.
4- Magpies - As stated numerous times: people are drawn to new and shiny things. If it looks good, some people will look into it, others will just buy it (see 'people with expendable incomes')

Lastly, you appear to forget that opinions are subjective. Games are not factually considered 'good' or 'bad'; the verdict is up to the gamer. There are billions of people in the world; it would be talking out of your ass to say that there isn't a market for everything.
i actually had a post ready about this, but i decided not to post it because of lack of worthwhile content.

let me instead counter your points one by one:

1) as awareness on games is increasing, and they are becoming an increasingly larger part of our culture, parents are actually doing this. i remember working at a game retailer several years ago, where i would see parents with their children every day. it really struck me how much more most of them cared than i anticipated (i had pretty much the stereotype of what you described in my head when i started). of course, back then there were much less emphasis on physical motion than there is now, but really, it's just hopping from one trend to another.

i will say that the interest is still fairly limited, and we probably won't see any parents in this generation care excessively about what their child plays; but i'll wager that when the coming generations will become parents, they will have a much stronger opinion on games. not just as legal guardians, but as players themselves.

2) casual gamers are per definition people who want to have a casual atmosphere around a game. this includes events such as party gaming, and these people generally aim more at creating a social atmosphere than actually playing any game. since the game isn't in focus, it can by them be substituted by anything else. they only care about the game as far as it can actually provide worthwhile multiplayer entertainment. gimmicks have no place here, since gimmicks provide no worthwhile entertainment.

as an addendum, you should consider your prejudice about people and what they are into, especially considering there is no logic in your statement about casual gamers.

3) as a games developer, i consider game 'research' to be much needed; which is why i sometimes force myself to play games in order to look for what hooks people in said games. i have a budget every couple of months for which i can buy any game, whether hyped or out of interest. i have a large collection of games; with some i've played through numerous times and some i've never touched. i usually check around on a few review sites before checking a game out, if a demo isn't out. i know several people (colleagues and friends) who are in the same situation. i would never buy a game because of its gimmick, and i don't think the people i know would either.

it boggles my mind how you stereotype a person with interest in games to label him completely ignorant of said games. it's like expecting a person with a personal library of books to be ignorant in literature. it really hurts your credibility when you speak of these people you know that obviously have an interest in games that you neglect to mention.

4) not really an argument since magpies aren't humans.

lastly, i do not forget anything. opinions are subjective, yes. opinions masquerading as facts are too. you substitute your own stereotype definition for seemingly the entire demographic of players instead of looking at things as how they are. i used to see things my way too, but then i grew up and realized that even though you see stupid people on tv and on the internet, it doesn't mean that every single person is equally stupid. take my advice and get out somewhere and meet with people, or even just sit on a bench and look at them. i can assure you you'll be positively surprised.

as a final note: yes, everyone likes different tastes, yadda yadda subjectivity. this is true, but you don't market a product on a business model that say, "everyone likes everything".
 

aDFP

New member
Jul 9, 2010
2
0
0
That point you missed, Yahtzee, I found it. There is one major problem with the 3D of games like Super Mario 64 and Zelda, which you're probably so used to compensating for that you don't recognise anymore, and it's simply this: If Mario was standing in a white, diffusely lit room, you wouldn't have the slightest idea where he was in relation to the yellow block floating (presumably) above his head.

We pick up our sense of where a character is in 3D space from secondary visual cues (scale relationships, immediate memory and that ever-present blob-shadow), and the environments in Super Mario games are, at least partially, designed around giving us a constant supply of those cues.

It's THE major failing of 3D games (SM64 type 3D, not Roy-Orbison sunglasses 3D), and the main reason why 2D platformers still play better than they do in 3D. They are more precise, because you always know exactly where you are in a 2D plane (the analogue/digital direction thing is another factor, but 3D can't fix that one).

I think the reason Nintendo is trawling out all the old titles is simply because they play better on the 3DS than they did on the N64. Of course, I haven't been to E3 either, so I'm only guessing, but I'm also going to put my money where my assumptions are and pick up a 3DS the moment they're available.
 

SimGrave

New member
Jan 7, 2010
96
0
0
Actually, I don't mind Microsoft and Sony trying to get a share of Nintendo's market. As long as they offer something different and they do. Microsoft is going with a controller-free technology, but offers a library similar to Nintendo's. Sony is offering similar controls to Nintendo, but offers a more mature library. Yes it's similar, but it will actually talk to different people.

I use to have a Wii and since I sold it, I miss playing Resident Evil 4 with the Wii remote. So Resident Evil 5 using Move is great news to me. On the Kinect side, I can see my kids having a blast with the racing game. There are some advantages of owning a Wii. It's fun for social and family activities, but its offering for a gamer (not interested in Nintendo games) is kinda weak. I sold mine, but something I wish I still had it to play when friends are coming over. But with the Move, I will be able to get the same type of fun without owning 2 consoles; one accumulating dust for that one time in a month that friends coming over want to play with.

We have to understand something. These companies don't have to focus all their energy to please us. They already offer us a lot and still keep on doing it. They have the right to try to reach new markets. All you have to do if you are not interested in these new products is to ignore them. Wii, Move and Kinect don't make God of War, Gears of War and Super Mario Galaxy any less interesting.

Plus new peripherals have always been there, powerglove, lightguns, steering wheels, Robbie the Robot, Eye Toy. It's just that now there are bigger demand for it and appeal to a broader audience. The other complain that we hear a lot is the massive quantity of accessories that they are selling for there new peripherals. But it's 10 times more important with iPod accessories and you don't hear anyone complaining about it.

Personally, I don't care about 3D stuff. It's an old thing that all of a sudden every body talks as if it was new. I have yet to see a movie where the 3D does bring a interesting dimension and not just a gimmick. But hey, I don't mind that people like that. It doesn't prevent me to enjoy Uncharted or Burnout because it exists.

Bottom line, everybody finds something to like, so it?s an everybody wins situation.
 

migo

New member
Jun 27, 2010
2,698
0
0
I think it really depends on the game. Socom 4 showed a major improvement over dual analog for FPS games, and Move might make the PS3 actually viable for an FPS game, and Echochrome II also makes solid use of it, especially considering it's a puzzle game that doesn't require quick action.
 

joebushido

New member
Jul 10, 2010
4
0
0
I agree with your points on motion control in general, but how can you call stereoscopic 3D "a crude imitation of a hypothetical future technology that gets us nowhere" without having tried it in games. Then turn around and say " I don't have an opinion, and won't have one until I actually play the thing. The proof of the pudding, friends, is in the eating." when talking about Portal 2? Don't you think you're being a little unfair to 3D gaming? Aren't critics supposed to approach all new things without any prejudice and remain unbiased? You never know, you might actually love 3D gaming and totally hate portal 2, it's possible. If Tim Schafer can make a shitty game starring Jack Black, then anything is possible.
 

reiem531

New member
Aug 26, 2009
259
0
0
JaceValm said:
The big thing I don't like about the 3DS (or in fact the DSI) is that I already have a DS. The more people who buy the current edition of a DS the less who will buy the new one because they already have one. Ok the DS and DS lite (which I have) are not too different, it's like a PS2 slimline (because the current gen consoles slim do newer things), did the same thing, had the same insides (to the extent of my knowledge) but was smaller. Then the DSI came along and I thought they were advertising some sort of detective game. Nintendo said: Look, it's got a camera! I said: Why would I need a camera on my DS? I have a camera, I have a DS, if I lost the DSI I would lose both functions but if I lost my DS I'd just have nothing to do on long journeys when my Ipod hasn't got any battery.

the 3DS is a gimmick, nothing more. All my friends who own a DS won't get the 3DS because they don't care about 3D qualities because £100 on sometihng you already have half of is too expensive. Nintendo does things before everyone else it seems, I think that is a weakness as well as a strength. They start the bandwagon and everyone jumps on it but they might not do it right allowing others to step in and improve the gimmick. But by then everyone has the Nintendo and doesn't want the new thing (see earlier points).

Sorry for the long rant.
^has obviously not realized yet that the 3DS is more than just a DS with 3D capabilities.
 

beema

New member
Aug 19, 2009
944
0
0
You hit the nail on the head here. Motion controls do not increase immersion -- they break it. They increase physical interactivity, but that is not the same thing by a long shot. \
 

Flying-Emu

New member
Oct 30, 2008
5,367
0
0
MikeTheElf said:
Games are meant to be gimmicky. They're built around capturing your attention at least long enough for one to buy it, to feed the parties involved with its production and sale. Immersion is just a bonus that everyone feels entitled to. To use an allegory: food works the same way; one can sustain oneself on food that doesn't taste good, but once one tastes more enticing food, one expects more out of all future foods. Everyone was content when 8-bit games were on the market, just as everyone was content pumping quarters into arcade machines for hours or days.

Entertainment has always been a contest as to what can hold one's attention; this results in a battle to see who can produce the nicest gimmick, game or service. This means that when one company does something that is the slightest bit profitable, all companies in the field will do the same; CDs supplanted cartridges, DVDs CDs, Blurays are apparently next. People are attracted to the shiniest object, and the Wii outsold both PS3 and 360. Motion control was naturally the next step. No one cares about innovation; they all want money.
I love you. Finally, someone who realizes what the gaming industry is, first and foremost: an INDUSTRY.
 

Flying-Emu

New member
Oct 30, 2008
5,367
0
0
joebushido said:
I agree with your points on motion control in general, but how can you call stereoscopic 3D "a crude imitation of a hypothetical future technology that gets us nowhere" without having tried it in games. Then turn around and say " I don't have an opinion, and won't have one until I actually play the thing. The proof of the pudding, friends, is in the eating." when talking about Portal 2? Don't you think you're being a little unfair to 3D gaming? Aren't critics supposed to approach all new things without any prejudice and remain unbiased? You never know, you might actually love 3D gaming and totally hate portal 2, it's possible. If Tim Schafer can make a shitty game starring Jack Black, then anything is possible.
Get used to it. Yahtzee is the king of contradictions: There's a reason he's got a cult dedicated solely to hatred of anything the man says.
 

joebushido

New member
Jul 10, 2010
4
0
0
Flying-Emu said:
Get used to it. Yahtzee is the king of contradictions: There's a reason he's got a cult dedicated solely to hatred of anything the man says.
That's truly a shame, because I usually agree with his reviews. Even when he bashes games I like, like Far Cry 2. Yes.. I actually liked that game.
 

Quiet Stranger

New member
Feb 4, 2006
4,409
0
0
People say Playstation Move and Kinect rip off Nintendo, I SAY Nintendo ripped off Sony, anyone remember the Eye Toy??
 

ww666

New member
Feb 18, 2010
117
0
0
after a long and hard day of work would you rather sit down and mash some buttons or wave your arms like a retarded on the living room?

thats all you gotta ask yourself
 

Flamespeak

New member
May 19, 2010
42
0
0
I don't care about immersion for most games, I just want to have fun.

When implemented correctly, motion controls can make a game extremely fun, but most of the time they are not. RE 4 on the Wii was motion control done right and it made a game that was already very fun even better, unfortunately a lot of games on the Wii do ridiculous waggle controls that don't translate into anything on the screen worth a turd and also don't feel comfortable to play with.

So I got mixed feelings on motion controls. Done right, I dig them, done poorly, I hate them with an unbridled fury. The big thing though is that many games don't benefit from the control scheme in any way and a standard controller is preferred. Look at Monster Hunter Tri for a prime example.