On Kinect and PlayStation Move

[TsunamiWombat]

Some people asked me if it was actually me doing the voice of the robot sidekick in the most recent gameplay video. I can now put on record that it is most definitely not. Not that I'd be unwilling to do so if you'd be willing to pay for the flight out again, Valve.

I would LOVE to see this happen...

 

[Enerfor]

Agreed

 

[MikeTheElf]

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".

1- I agree partly with your 'future generations will pay more attentions to their children's gaming habits' bit--if applied to the ratings on games. You could probably attribute that to the current gaming generation's dislike for children in online play. The major problem with this being the be all to end all for 12 year olds playing M games, however, is the innate human flaw which compulses parents to say or to think, 'my kid is smarter than all of those other kids,' or other excuses. The problem may get better, but it will never end. So there's the underage issue.

As for the quality issue which I've been arguing: you're still looking at it the wrong way; quality only needs to remain minimum to continue to see sales; it need not ever improve, so long as people are willing to play it.

2- Let me start off with saying: I consider myself a casual gamer; there is no prejudice against that demographic which I hold. Secondly: our definitions are apparently different. Mine encompasses yours, but also includes the demographic of people who aren't into 'hardcore' gaming; those sort of people who play games on occasion, or play games that don't require too much attention, or which provide a relaxing atmosphere, etc.--and these players are not necessarily only in gaming for the social aspects; games DO have single-player modes, and there are plenty of 'casual' single-player-only games.

Anyway, for people who don't particularly care for the quality of the game (so long as it's functionable), gimmicky things sell. Ex: motion control. Motion control, as you appear to have agreed, is a gimmick. The Wii is the biggest console for casual gamers. QED.

3- Point is moot; you said you had a budget, I said expendable income. People with expendable income tend to expend their incomes, usually on things which catch their eyes. That's how impulse purhcases work, and impulse purchases are how gimmicks sell.

4- I hold humankind closest to magpies, espeicially in the coming generations with people with short attention spans being raised watching colourful lights blink new and exciting* television shows, or the explosions in COD16 or the epilptic seizure-inducing simulated pyrotechnics in Guitar Hero 73: Greatest 5-note-chord-filled Hits.

It's scientifically proven that human attention is attracted by constantly changing stimuli, such as flashing lights. Humans are magpies.

Definitions are inherently subjective. Extrapolations of facts are also subjective. The entire field of market research is based on subjectivity, therefore our entire argument is based on 'facts' extrapolated from subjective definitions of demographics.

---

I love you. Finally, someone who realizes what the gaming industry is, first and foremost: an INDUSTRY.

Yea, people still pretend to live in a world where money doesn't run everything. It's sad, as is the fact that money runs everything, but life goes on.

 

[TiefBlau]

I wholeheartedly agree that a game should be immersive, but I most definitely felt an intensity in No More Heroes by flailing the Wiimote around that surpasses what would have otherwise been brainless button mashing and quicktime events. The reality is that motion sensor controllers offer some degree of gratification that conventional controllers cannot, and given the proper nurturing that it's not likely to get, motion sensor technology can really add to the long-sought immersion of the game.

I remember hearing about Left4Dead 2 and understanding that it was utterly retarded to release a sequel beefore the original has even left its diapers, but when I played it, the gratifying crunch of the fire axe and the feeling you get from charging down a hall with a chainsaw made it feel, if but for a split second, that it was a completely different game. The "cheap gimmicks" that were melee weapons provided me with an iota of this immersion, and I couldn't help but want to see more. Motion sensor technology is the same. I found myself slicing and wrestling guy after guy in No More Heroes and being genuinely excited about what would have otherwise been aimless button mashing. It's tactile gratification, and while it can't completely erase controllers, controllers can't completely erase the motion sensors. They deserve further exploration. Motion sensors aren't a step away from Matrix-style immersion; it's a different path, with its own sets of pros and cons.

Finally, I'd like to point out that motion pictures started with a guy sneezing, and it was the shit. Of course good technology always starts out as gimmicky bullshit. Whether something will come of this motion sensing technology is beyond any of us here, but I firmly believe that even if it doesn't, it can.

 

[Yelchor]

I suppose that's the "price" you have to pay in order to be a critic, ignoring personal feelings and disregarding hopes and dreams to prevent having biased views of things. Having low expectations surely makes simple things alot more enjoyable.

...Wait, Yathzee -has- gone through demos! Well, a long time ago atleast. The Darkness and Heavenly Sword if I remember correctly, but I guess he reffers to that he'll never do such again.

I've always wanted Zero Punctuation to review the Darkness at some point. Why not finish what was started?

Perhaps regular retro-reviews would give refreshing variation apart from all the new products flooding us every year.

 

[theklng]

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".

1- I agree partly with your 'future generations will pay more attentions to their children's gaming habits' bit--if applied to the ratings on games. You could probably attribute that to the current gaming generation's dislike for children in online play. The major problem with this being the be all to end all for 12 year olds playing M games, however, is the innate human flaw which compulses parents to say or to think, 'my kid is smarter than all of those other kids,' or other excuses. The problem may get better, but it will never end. So there's the underage issue.

As for the quality issue which I've been arguing: you're still looking at it the wrong way; quality only needs to remain minimum to continue to see sales; it need not ever improve, so long as people are willing to play it.

2- Let me start off with saying: I consider myself a casual gamer; there is no prejudice against that demographic which I hold. Secondly: our definitions are apparently different. Mine encompasses yours, but also includes the demographic of people who aren't into 'hardcore' gaming; those sort of people who play games on occasion, or play games that don't require too much attention, or which provide a relaxing atmosphere, etc.--and these players are not necessarily only in gaming for the social aspects; games DO have single-player modes, and there are plenty of 'casual' single-player-only games.

Anyway, for people who don't particularly care for the quality of the game (so long as it's functionable), gimmicky things sell. Ex: motion control. Motion control, as you appear to have agreed, is a gimmick. The Wii is the biggest console for casual gamers. QED.

3- Point is moot; you said you had a budget, I said expendable income. People with expendable income tend to expend their incomes, usually on things which catch their eyes. That's how impulse purhcases work, and impulse purchases are how gimmicks sell.

4- I hold humankind closest to magpies, espeicially in the coming generations with people with short attention spans being raised watching colourful lights blink new and exciting* television shows, or the explosions in COD16 or the epilptic seizure-inducing simulated pyrotechnics in Guitar Hero 73: Greatest 5-note-chord-filled Hits.

It's scientifically proven that human attention is attracted by constantly changing stimuli, such as flashing lights. Humans are magpies.

Definitions are inherently subjective. Extrapolations of facts are also subjective. The entire field of market research is based on subjectivity, therefore our entire argument is based on 'facts' extrapolated from subjective definitions of demographics.

if definitions are inherently subjective, it means that we can't argue about anything, since everything is subjective. but we still all know that 2+2=4, so apparently definitions are not inherently subjective. QED.

ill start from the bottom this time.

4.
magpie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpie
human: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

to say one equals the other is blatant bullshit, and you know it. please refer your sources when saying something is scientifically proven, since you have a tendency to fill the discussion with bullshit. and even in the event of truth in this argument, what makes you think any other species isn't attracted to blinking lights, stimuli or whatever your argument is? does that mean we are all those other species too?

last time i checked humans weren't an amalgamation of different animals. but then again maybe you live in a fabled world where people turn into animals on a whim and scavenge for treasures for their treetop nests because apparently they are more important than food.

3.
point isn't moot - if a person with many books buys more books with his expendable income, would you consider him illiterate? even if he does not read all of those books, chances are he has read at least some of them, either fully or to a partial degree. this is true even if he buys books on impulse; it's not like the covers of the games are littered with silver linings or holographic images waving him or her to pick it up. he actually has to pick up the box and check its contents before he or she will purchase it.

if this person wanted something such as a shiny, i'd wager he'd go out and buy it. he'd buy a rolex or a golden necklace or whatever other bodily or household ornament he'd want.

2.
your entire first paragraph under this point just proves my point? you're saying that casual gamers enjoy games that are relaxing, yadda yadda etc.; which means that they are looking at content, and not gimmicks (since a gimmick does not offer any worthwhile entertainment).

your second paragraph is a mess. you disagree directly with your first paragraph, then you use the term 'biggest' (which is subjective) as a fact, then proceeding to think you have deducted a logical proof. trollish behavior at its worst.

1.
here's where you are wrong:

quality only needs to remain minimum to continue to see sales; it need not ever improve, so long as people are willing to play it.

it's not so much that i disagree with you, but any market analyst or business major will tell you different. before you talk out of your ass (or try to bullshit your way through arguments), i'd advise you to check what michael porter (business professor at harvard) has to say about this.

i really do think this discussion is over for as long as you do not want to listen. but then again since you think definitions are subjective, maybe listening means talking out of your ass. who knows?

 

[theklng]

Why does everyone care so damn much about immersion? Controllers are easy and fun, and 3D grenades and bullets flying toward you would be awesome, whether you're thinking about it being a game or not. The problem isn't that developers are failing to make games immersive the right way. The problem is that developers are trying too hard to make games immersive.

i think immersion is more accidental than anything else, since it is subjective at best. you can't force immersion, because immersion is pertaining to the player and not the game. therefore developers have little say in what is or isn't immersive, as it is entirely up to each player (or, perhaps each players' subconsciousness) to decide exactly how immersive a game is.

 

[dnose]

The problem, Yahtzee, is that you are assuming that games are working towards a Matrix-style immersion when in fact they see to be working towards more of a Star Trek Holodeck-like immersion. And if that is the case then motion controls are a logical next step.

 

[MikeTheElf]

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".

1- I agree partly with your 'future generations will pay more attentions to their children's gaming habits' bit--if applied to the ratings on games. You could probably attribute that to the current gaming generation's dislike for children in online play. The major problem with this being the be all to end all for 12 year olds playing M games, however, is the innate human flaw which compulses parents to say or to think, 'my kid is smarter than all of those other kids,' or other excuses. The problem may get better, but it will never end. So there's the underage issue.

As for the quality issue which I've been arguing: you're still looking at it the wrong way; quality only needs to remain minimum to continue to see sales; it need not ever improve, so long as people are willing to play it.

2- Let me start off with saying: I consider myself a casual gamer; there is no prejudice against that demographic which I hold. Secondly: our definitions are apparently different. Mine encompasses yours, but also includes the demographic of people who aren't into 'hardcore' gaming; those sort of people who play games on occasion, or play games that don't require too much attention, or which provide a relaxing atmosphere, etc.--and these players are not necessarily only in gaming for the social aspects; games DO have single-player modes, and there are plenty of 'casual' single-player-only games.

Anyway, for people who don't particularly care for the quality of the game (so long as it's functionable), gimmicky things sell. Ex: motion control. Motion control, as you appear to have agreed, is a gimmick. The Wii is the biggest console for casual gamers. QED.

3- Point is moot; you said you had a budget, I said expendable income. People with expendable income tend to expend their incomes, usually on things which catch their eyes. That's how impulse purhcases work, and impulse purchases are how gimmicks sell.

4- I hold humankind closest to magpies, espeicially in the coming generations with people with short attention spans being raised watching colourful lights blink new and exciting* television shows, or the explosions in COD16 or the epilptic seizure-inducing simulated pyrotechnics in Guitar Hero 73: Greatest 5-note-chord-filled Hits.

It's scientifically proven that human attention is attracted by constantly changing stimuli, such as flashing lights. Humans are magpies.

Definitions are inherently subjective. Extrapolations of facts are also subjective. The entire field of market research is based on subjectivity, therefore our entire argument is based on 'facts' extrapolated from subjective definitions of demographics.

if definitions are inherently subjective, it means that we can't argue about anything, since everything is subjective. but we still all know that 2+2=4, so apparently definitions are not inherently subjective. QED.

ill start from the bottom this time.

4.
magpie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpie
human: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

to say one equals the other is blatant bullshit, and you know it. please refer your sources when saying something is scientifically proven, since you have a tendency to fill the discussion with bullshit. and even in the event of truth in this argument, what makes you think any other species isn't attracted to blinking lights, stimuli or whatever your argument is? does that mean we are all those other species too?

last time i checked humans weren't an amalgamation of different animals. but then again maybe you live in a fabled world where people turn into animals on a whim and scavenge for treasures for their treetop nests because apparently they are more important than food.

3.
point isn't moot - if a person with many books buys more books with his expendable income, would you consider him illiterate? even if he does not read all of those books, chances are he has read at least some of them, either fully or to a partial degree. this is true even if he buys books on impulse; it's not like the covers of the games are littered with silver linings or holographic images waving him or her to pick it up. he actually has to pick up the box and check its contents before he or she will purchase it.

if this person wanted something such as a shiny, i'd wager he'd go out and buy it. he'd buy a rolex or a golden necklace or whatever other bodily or household ornament he'd want.

2.
your entire first paragraph under this point just proves my point? you're saying that casual gamers enjoy games that are relaxing, yadda yadda etc.; which means that they are looking at content, and not gimmicks (since a gimmick does not offer any worthwhile entertainment).

your second paragraph is a mess. you disagree directly with your first paragraph, then you use the term 'biggest' (which is subjective) as a fact, then proceeding to think you have deducted a logical proof. trollish behavior at its worst.

1.
here's where you are wrong:

quality only needs to remain minimum to continue to see sales; it need not ever improve, so long as people are willing to play it.

it's not so much that i disagree with you, but any market analyst or business major will tell you different. before you talk out of your ass (or try to bullshit your way through arguments), i'd advise you to check what michael porter (business professor at harvard) has to say about this.

i really do think this discussion is over for as long as you do not want to listen. but then again since you think definitions are subjective, maybe listening means talking out of your ass. who knows?

4. Find a psychology textbook and look at human perception, unless you're one of those people who denounce psychology as a pseudoscience, that's scientific proof. Unlike what you think, there is backing to my arguments, and I request that you kindly quit denoucning me as a troll. I used the magpie as my example because it was the first animal which came to mind that epitomises what I was describing.

3. Just because you read books doesn't make you literate.
a)I could have a library filled with children's books. Tt's still a massive library.
b)Some people don't learn from reading. A few of my friends read more books than most people and still don't grasp fully the written English language; they consistently mistake homophones, construct sentences incorrectly, etc.. If you consider anything less than basic mastery 'literacy,' then our subjective definitions again clash.
c)Some people like reading, even if the books are crap. My mom reads gratuitous amounts of romance novels, and lately hasn't read anything considered meritous. My mom has an extensive library of romance novels, but does that make her the most learned person in her house?

2. My point was that casual gamers don't necessarily care about how a game plays, and if it's considered a good game or not. More oft than not, casual gamers formulate their own opinions on certain video games, and play them regardless of popular belief. If you walk into a video game store, and want to buy a bunch of games, do you pick from the 'good' games which are still priced at slightly less than when first released, or do you pick a dozen 'not-so-good' games from the shelf if it'll run you the same amount as getting the one good game and take up 12x more of your time? Ultimately, casual gamers opinions fluctuate wildly, which is what I was getting at.

As for my use of the word 'biggest,' I justify it with market data stating that the Wii vastly outsold PS3 and 360 combined. It's a gimmick machine. Again, I'm not going to bother looking for the data, you can go look it up if you really don't trust me, which I imagine you don't. If you'll trust my memory, the Wii had somewhere around 12m sales worldwide whereas 360 and PS3 combined was under 7m.

1. Fine, you caught me. I didn't go to college for a bullshit degree which I need to extrapolate data from charts (a skill learned in primary school), and apply it to human behaviour (a skill learned in an introductory Psychology course, which I've taken).

 

[theklng]

4. Find a psychology textbook and look at human perception, unless you're one of those people who denounce psychology as a pseudoscience, that's scientific proof. Unlike what you think, there is backing to my arguments, and I request that you kindly quit denoucning me as a troll. I used the magpie as my example because it was the first animal which came to mind that epitomises what I was describing.

3. Just because you read books doesn't make you literate.
a)I could have a library filled with children's books. Tt's still a massive library.
b)Some people don't learn from reading. A few of my friends read more books than most people and still don't grasp fully the written English language; they consistently mistake homophones, construct sentences incorrectly, etc.. If you consider anything less than basic mastery 'literacy,' then our subjective definitions again clash.
c)Some people like reading, even if the books are crap. My mom reads gratuitous amounts of romance novels, and lately hasn't read anything considered meritous. My mom has an extensive library of romance novels, but does that make her the most learned person in her house?

2. My point was that casual gamers don't necessarily care about how a game plays, and if it's considered a good game or not. More oft than not, casual gamers formulate their own opinions on certain video games, and play them regardless of popular belief. If you walk into a video game store, and want to buy a bunch of games, do you pick from the 'good' games which are still priced at slightly less than when first released, or do you pick a dozen 'not-so-good' games from the shelf if it'll run you the same amount as getting the one good game and take up 12x more of your time? Ultimately, casual gamers opinions fluctuate wildly, which is what I was getting at.

As for my use of the word 'biggest,' I justify it with market data stating that the Wii vastly outsold PS3 and 360 combined. It's a gimmick machine. Again, I'm not going to bother looking for the data, you can go look it up if you really don't trust me, which I imagine you don't. If you'll trust my memory, the Wii had somewhere around 12m sales worldwide whereas 360 and PS3 combined was under 7m.

1. Fine, you caught me. I didn't go to college for a bullshit degree which I need to extrapolate data from charts (a skill learned in primary school), and apply it to human behaviour (a skill learned in an introductory Psychology course, which I've taken).

4. i'm not denouncing psychology in any way. i was brought up with it as both my parents are clinical psychologists. and no, that's still not what is considered to be scientific proof by neither the scientific community / academics nor the legal system in any country. if you cannot present hard evidence for your claim, your claim is void. there is no backing to these arguments, because you haven't provided hard evidence.

3. it doesn't matter what kind of books they are. if you have a library of children's books, then you are, by use, literate in children's literature. if you have a library of games, then you are, by use, literate in games.

and here again you use a weak argumentation. how do you know how many books people on average read? even if you went around and asked, you'd still not get a statistically accurate answer, because your local demographic is too small. so our definitions do not clash, but again you try to bullshit your way through by undermining my point. to your question: it makes her the most learned person on romance novels. read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy (see, that's hard evidence right there)

2. here you use subjectivity again. casual players do not care if a game is good or not? do any players? do all players? how do you know? i think all player eventually start formulating opinions on games, much as every person starts formulating opinions as they mature; whether or not the games are popular and whether or not the players are casual. but still, you do not have a demographic that supports your claim, so there's still no hold to this argument.

don't call it the biggest then, just say it sold the most.

1. so you think your introductory psychology class is going to tell you something about market statistics and predictions? yeah, good luck with that.

don't denounce something you could learn from. you didn't go to college to get a business degree, but i doubt you have any degree what so ever (it shows on your writing and argumentation). i don't have a degree in business myself, but i can see the usefulness of people that do have one (i'm a B.Sc. in computer science myself).

either way, point 1 is irrelevant since you concede the point. i'm just waiting for you to concede the rest.

 

[Something Amyss]

As I've stated: they just need to grab attention long enough for the target audience to purchase them; it doesn't have to be a successful object. Case and point: Laserdisc. For those of you who don't know what it is, I'll save you a wikipedia trip. It's the first attempt at DVD. It's a disc the size of a record, and it too flopped horrendously. Because of its shiny appearance, schools across America purchased them left and right, because of its array of educational videos.

1- VHS outsold DVD because no one had DVD players, due to their expense. Same thing with Bluray. As soon as the technology becomes cheaper, people jump on it.

2- The Wii is the best-selling console because it is a gimmick.

3- You pointed out that both Wii and 360 use DVD. Despite the fact that only one current-gen console uses Bluray, I consider Bluray a success, because it hasn't died out yet. HDDVD was jumped over (similar to Laserdisc), and now everything will be released on DVD and Bluray, until DVD cycles out.

4- What sort of television do you think most people play video games on? I'm using a craptastic CRT circa 1995, and it is absolutely horrendous for gaming. The resolution on it is so ridiculously bad for current-gen games. You know why? Because current-gen games are designed to be graphical (except for those for the Wii). I can't figure out what is going on in half of my PS2 games, let alone Assassin's Creed (Hell, Lego Harry Potter is difficult to figure out; that's how bad my television set is). Most 'gamers' use HDMI output, massive Plasma, LCD or LED LCD sets, etc..

You're shifting the goalposts. New and shiny either works or it doesn't. You can't retroactively justify how it works sometimes despite cost and not others, especially in the same market.

1- False. DVD technology had come down to affordable before they killed the format, and the format continued to dominate

2- That goalpost shifting I mentioned prior. The Wii disproves the notion of new and shiny, so you try and force another solution.

3- That's a pretty low bar for success, especially when BD alone can barely beat a dead format. A format that's been dead for nearly a decade now, I must add. Laserdisc, of course, lasted longer than BD has been a format, so it's patently absurd to mark one as a success for simply not dying when panning the other one as being "passed over." I'm not even talking niche markets, where LD survived well into the 90s. Hell, wikipedia cites them as being released alongside DVD as late as 2001. You brought it up, not me. You also oversimplified the use of LD in schools, but that's not really pertinent.

4- I used a CRT until a year ago. Either you're exaggerating or...No, that's pretty much the only answer I can see here.

"Case in point," by the way. Again, neither here nor there. I mean, what are you even arguing now? You've offered like two dozen exceptions to your own rules, shift the goalposts when your own concepts don't suit you, and to what end, really?

 

[Frozedon]

The whole motion control thing is all just a gimmick. The companies don't care about creating an optimal experience. They just care about making a profit. But, this whole thing will probably pass after a couple years. U sgamers just have to wait it out. Until they move onto real virtual reality. Where we can put on the equipment and jstomp koopas through the eyes of Mario. That'll be the day.

 

[Dane Tesston]

I'm on the fence with the whole thing. On one hand, the Wii does prove that motion controls can work (and yes, Mr. Chroshaw, it does work, no matter how much yours hates you), while on the other, more personally fueled hand, I think that motion controls and regular handheld controllers should be kept seperate if the game simply calls for the ladder more. Simply put, it's one of those "wait and see" type deals for me.

 

[PompiPompi]

You really don't get it, do you?
Kinect is not ment to replace gamepads. Kinect is ment to give you a DIFFERENT gaming experience than you always had. And it does deliver that.
Did you actually play it?
It's tons of fun once you get rid of your cynical view of life. Yea, you jump a lot and move your body like a little kid, but that is what fun about it.
You could also say, "Gamepads can't replace the keyboard and mouse". And you don't have a keyboard and a mouse in consoles.
Does that mean gamepads are better than a keyboard and a mouse? Does keyboards and a mouse better than gamepads?

 

[Bigred42]

Their are actually 2 different approaches to direct connection to video games 3 if you're smart about it. and becoming a "plug head" is the least fun. my alternative that is far less painful than a socket installed in you're brain is full body suit built out of nano-machines that feel every bit of motion you make and can display images and surround sound on a mask you ware. you would also be in a room or puddle of nanobots that allow you to run and jump without hitting walls you still get the direct connection of thought to action plus no chance of getting fat from sitting on you're ass all day and doing nothing but live in cyber space I'll laugh when you some of the first to upload you're self Yahtzee

 

[EchetusXe]

Really interesting point about the waving-about-remote things, or whatever they are called. I was kinda hoping that they would be advancing technology, but probably not it would seem. Glad I didn't get involved with them.

For some reason I am also I am delighted to hear Yahtzee is a fan of Mark Kermode's podcasts. Even though I don't go to the cinema anymore it is still interesting and amusing for me to hear his views.