On Kinect and PlayStation Move

[fepayton]

I feel that people are judging motion controls as one would judge apples to bananas. I feel that they are advertised as bananas when they are not, and I feel this is where their criticism stems from. To be blunt, I don't believe that much time has been invested into what motion controls are (and I feel it dismissive to simply call them shit).

To summarise what I feel has been said; motion controls do not improve immersion, Stereoscopic 3D does not improve immersion, and gross motion control is too slow (and or imprecise), current controls do not need replacing.
Will all of the above I agree. I also feel that this opinion ignores what motion controls could do.

It is a difficult position to take, arguing that the possible benefits make these new technologies worthwhile. However, given the immaturity of the technology, it feels as though too many have shallowly discarded it.

I remember playing two person 'co-op' single player Decent with my brother. For those who don't know, Decent was a space game with axes of controllable movement. In each of X, Y and Z the ship could translate and turn about the axes. Given that all direction had a forward and back, there were 12 buttons just for control. I would take half, including the secondary weapon, while my brother would take the other half.

Most games only have limited movement: translation about the Z and Y, and rolling about X and Y (with jump giving some minute control over Y translations). It is here where I think motion controls could shine. I agree that the current set of controls handles the most important 4 excellently, but I hope that developers (and critiques) would be open to the idea that more is now possible.

Regarding 3D vision and Kinect; I remember crossing a link to "Johnny Chung Lee projects" [http://johnnylee.net/projects/wii/], the specific project being "Head Tracking for Desktop VR Displays using the Wii Remote". Seeing this blew my mind. It uses the technology in ways that are backwards from its design to fantastic effect. I consider the (now very real) possibility of such technology becoming commonplace. Additionally I imagine how 3D could take that idea and improve it further.

To be blunt, I feel that this article is overly focused on one idea:

"See, the hypothetical ultimate model of gaming is total immersion." -YZ

Given this as an ideal then the argument stands. My deconstruction would be to argue that this is one of many ideals. Personally I hope to one day make games that replace school curriculum, so my grandchildren will eagerly take a self directed approach to their education. I can state that my ideal games are educational and compelling, well before they are immersive. To bring this back to the subject of control (before the statement above drifts too far off topic); I feel that immersion would ideally be fully customizable. Casually down the rabbit hole on work days, and all the way down on Friday night.


"Assume that nothing good is coming and wait to be pleasantly surprised." - to paraphrase YZ

I am optimistic that we need only wait. Therefore I think that closing this discussion and dooming the technology is premature. It will be slow.

 

[PlasticTree]

A good column, although the enthousiasm that drips from 3DS-previews (previews that are made by the same 'thinkers and philosophers') points in a different direction. Especially since thése guys actually experienced it first-hand.

However, there is one sentence in your column that is complete and utter bullshit, and you know it:

Because I don't have an opinion, and won't have one until I actually play the thing.

Come on, Yahtzee. Even though everyone wishes this is true, there is not a single person on earth who isn't influenced by what he sees and hears, even though his brains tell him 'not to get influenced'.

 

[KDR_11k]

Motion control is useful when you don't want a direct link between thought and result because the process is supposed to be difficult. The best example at hand are golf games, you may want to do a straight shot onto the green but handling a real golf club isn't that easy, it doesn't come with an angle or power control. To simulate that difficulty games have developed all kinds of multi-button kludges. With motion controls you just swing the controller and that's your swing right there, any errors in your ingame swing are results of swinging the controller wrong, not of failing some arbitrary minigame system.

Few games actually want to add difficulty to their actions, only ones based on real world situations the players have seen on TV actually care since only then do players know that the act is supposed to be difficult instead of getting some hollywoodized point-and-click approach. Yet games also come up with ideas like active reload which is also a kludge for making fast reloads not a trivial thing. With motion controls you can require the player to perform certain motions to test his manual dexterity.

A somewhat comparable example would be the DS Japan-only game Super Control Mecha MG, the bottom screen shows buttons and various mechanisms necessary to operate your mech. It's not just a matter of moving regular buttons on the touch screen though because often the really powerful attacks are difficult to perform on the bottom screen. Many firearms require manually loading the shell into the gun.

For a similar real life example in combat a tank's rate of fire is highly dependent on the crew's ability to quickly load the shells into the main gun. A few tanks use autoloaders but the most common ones don't as a good crew can load faster than an autoloader. In a game tanks currently just get a reload bar or fixed time between shots.

I don't advocate shoehorning motion controls into current games by replacing buttons with gestures but expanding the scope of the gameplay into previously automatic actions by having players perform them manually with a consistent and intuitive control scheme (having a reload procedure consist of several timed button presses is neither).

 

[Malisteen]

Dunno 'bout Portal 2. On the one hand, the first game was tremendous. But really, did it need a sequel? Like my other favorite puzzle game, Ico, it was pretty perfectly well contained. I mean, how much of a cop out was it to tack a little extra ending onto the first game where Chell didn't actually escape after all? And now you have to escape the same lab all over again, only now it's messy! and there are more arbitrary gimmicks!

Again, the first game was great, and Glados was an awesome villain who I do look forward to hearing more from. The visuals and environment look great. But I'm not expecting the kind of sparkling gem that the first game was, any more then I would if I heard there was a direct sequel to Ico in the works where the kids were captured from the beach three seconds after we left them and taken back to the castle to try and escape all over again.

 

[mastiffchild]

If motion controls and 3D are doomed to failure Benny boy just why must you and other critics do ANYTHING much less do any reckless arm waving(which is, ironically, exactly what Kinect appears to be about). Won't it just go away on it's own without your help?

To me the BIG error we've seen with motion controls is that developers haven't tried to find just the areas where they MIGHT improve on what we've got already and as a result we have a zillion Wii games where unsuitable tasks have been allocated extra waggle for t's own sake! That isn't improvement that's just taking the job off a button to do it less well!

Kinect, to my mind, is the weakest of the three for actual games we might wish to one day play. Thing is there's just too many limits put on it by having no controller at all and the thing isn't accurate enough to decipher multiple little actions for the jobs usually done by stick, trigger and button. even if it was up to it that kind of scheme would be RUBBISH to use and I fear MS have gone down a blank alley even where other motion control schemes are concerned.

We've had little of importance from motion= a year after it arrived and I only really saw much of any hope in that Sorcery demo Sony did and one motion control idea that looks Ok for a whole E3 is NOT much. Oh, Zelda looked OK too but after such a shitty display control wise we'll have to wait. Thing is they COULD make a shooter with motion controls that would be better than pad controls long term but that isn't where they think the money is and it's like they gave up on doing hardcore games better with motion after the first MP game for the Wii. Socom4 looks pretty good but as it supports both pad and Move I feel it will be great with what they're used to and a bit half arsed with the motion tech Zipper were probably forced into. In terms of function, though, there's no reason it cannot compete with keyboard and mouse but while Move Party or Kinectimals(spit) are the BIG, important games what's the chance of actual gaming advancements that matter?

Another thing-about the 3DS-Am I alone in thinking "what is the effing point on such a small screen when it's crap on a biggun at the piccys?"?

 

[ChupathingyX]

Does anyone remember Eye Toy? That came before Wii but no one seems to remember it? Anyway I think motion controls are total bull mainly because it isnt fun to flail your arms around and just get tired and be feeling even more pain in the morning. That and the fact that there just arn't ANY games I've ever see on any platform that interested me.

Also Yahtzee have you heard about Fallout: New Vegas? I know you just stated that you don't care about hype but...In your Red Dead Redemption Extra Punctuation review you said one reason why RDR was bad was because you didnt have to do things like eat or drink when yu wereout in the desert, well Fallout: New Vegas has a feature just like that, also you will be able to solve almost all problems with either bullets, stealth or just talking, its even possible to complete the main quest without killing a single person.

Also am I the ONLY person in the whole world who doesnt like a single Valve game?

 

[JohnSmith]

Just one thought I had for kinect, that might be relevant to making games more immersive; what if an option was added to FPS such that about 10-20 degrees of camera freedom was controlled by you moving your head given the tech specs of kinect it should be able to accomplish it admirably. That way auto-aim and the lack of precision in console games become relics of the past at the same time. Also properly used gesture and voice support could make for a very immersive sci-fi RTS simply make the interface as if you are the general in the war room manipulating units and such on reactive holographic table (like the RUSE trailer all though cooler). Aside from those two ideas though I can see what you mean about motion control being less immersive.

 

[kosamae]

There's one thing that I think most people are missing with Playstation Move that I'm looking forward too - shooters.
The biggest flaw with console shooters, at the moment, is aiming with the right analog stick. If game developers can effectively use Move to track where I'm actually aiming (probably with a tiny bit of jitter correction), I honestly think it could revolutionize how we play shooters on a console.
They key is immersion. Motion controls used properly can enhance immersion, used improperly they kill it.
I, for one, am really looking forward to playing RE5 with Move.

 

[solidstatemind]

Well-thought-out and well-written. And I'm not just saying that because I have refractive error in my right eye, so 'stereoscopic 3D' means jack-shit to me: the analogy of the dismay of classic movie critics who bemoan the sacrifice of content and quality for cheap parlor tricks is very legitimate.

 

[fairinheight]

Hey, I was quoted! AWESOME!
Victory lap around the pool!

 

[MGlBlaze]

I agree about the whole motion controls thing. Even with outdated graphics, just having to do small movements is several orders of magnitude more immersive than current graphics with motion controls. All well and good for a bit of fun, but for a serious experience it's a deal breaker. I can think of many of my Wii games (And I'm sure many others can as well) that would be so much better if it could just have a normal controller.
The Wii is the only system this generation that has failed to get my heart pounding from some kind of suspense. And I don't even like the 360 all that much.

As for the 3DS, the jury's out on this one if you ask me. I'll just wait and see.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I think the whole draw for the motion control is that it's supposed to be a more intuitive alternative for non-gamers who are bamboozled by the xbox/ps controllers with their dozen buttons and multiple sticks. These are people who's last game was probably played with one stick and one button.
The stupid thing is that they're coming out with this stuff two years after Nintendo already saturated that market.

AND
I love that word: Tosspot. What is a tosspot anyway? Is it what I think it is: a pot that one would toss-off/ejaculate into?

 

[Gormers1]

Trying to make games immersive always == making controls as 1-to-1/responsive as possible?

 

[AncientYoungSon]

The only silver lining to this entire motion-control nonsense is this: everyone I know who bought a Wii doesn't use it anymore. All of the casual/non-gamers who bought the thing because it was popular to own are letting it gather dust right now (Wii Dust).

What percentage of these people would go out and buy a Wii2? When the Wii2 ads start showing up, most of these people are going to glance at the dust-covered Wii sitting on their home entertainment center and I don't think they'll be terribly keen on going out to buy another one.

 

[gardyna]

the thing wich makes morion controls so popular is that they are simple and anyone can potentialy pick up and play (the point of console gaming) any motion control game without having to use a tutorial stage. I see his point on the shortest time between thought and action but for newer gamers it sometimes goes like this: thought --> remembering which button does the action --> pushing the button --> action so for newer gamers i think that motion controls are a great way to get easily into the hobby

p.s. from my standpoint i think the Move i better than natal (the new name is just silly) becouse it has something to grab onto so there is the potential to imitate something and for that reason it could be pretty hard to do anything but extremely casual/gimmicky games where you are basicaly clutching at thin air or flailing around like you got insect crawling around on your body with natal (natal isn´t a much better name than kinect is it huh?)

 

[gardyna]

Also am I the ONLY person in the whole world who doesnt like a single Valve game?

yes. yes you are

 

[Pebkio]

I think the biggest problem I have with motion controls is that they remove a lot of ways to have input with a game.

NES controllers had 4 directions (not limited by the hardware) and 2 buttons to interract with the enviroment (usually jump and attack... or attack and use item).

A typical next-gen console controller has 360 directions (maybe more and not limited by hardware) and 12 buttons for more specific intereaction (Halo: Shoot, shoot a different way, pick up a weapon/activate car or turret or console, use special item,, pick up a second weapon, switch weapon, throw grenade, use light, crouch, zoom, hit something, jump, etc, etc...).

The Wiimote (and now Playstation Move). Has 360 degreee movement (not limited by the harware but adversly affected), and up to 8 ways to interract with the enviroment (Buttons A-B-1-2-Z-C, point, and use item). The use item thing is the biggest feature, because you can use the item in many different ways, but it's still just "use item".

Kinect... has maybe 4 directions (limited by hardware) and perhaps 4 ways to interract with the game (use item, pick up item, open door, and attack). Yes yes, your avatar goes into whatever goofy shape you're in; so let's just make games based on all the goofy shapes you can be in, I can just feel the innovation in my gut.

The controls might be interesting for a computer that you hook up to the big screen though... Okay, yeah, Kinect is actually innovtion for computer input that replaces the mouse and they're just beta testing it on the Xbox. Kinect would be the first step towards that computer you saw in Minority Report.

However, unless you can make a kinect controller be able to reliably cover an entire warehouse... and then maybe a bunch of people in the warehouse... then have the game projected over everyone and everything... and give that game substance... and... holy crap! That's a holodeck.

 

[foxtrot3100]

I have to disagree with Yahtzee. I think there are two kinds of immersion: Matrix-head-plug and star trek holo-deck, where your own physical body is placed in a simulated world. Imagine being Link, a jedi, or [insert favorite sword wielding character] and fighting their archenemies with your own hands. This is the direction motion controls are heading.

Now, granted, in the end the matrix-type immersion will win out b/c you're avatar will not be limited by your physical limits (or physics themselves). But beyond actually connecting your brain and eyes with wires to the game, I don't see anyway to further that kind of immersion. That kind of technology is in the works, but it is sluggish at best.

 

[Pebkio]

So... the two different systems lead to two different ways of playing?

Motion Controls lead to the holodeck?
...while...
Button Controls lead to direct input?

Taken to those extremes, you can tell which one of those will be for hardcore gamers and which is for casual gamers. I've always said that I don't like games that get too realistic.

Holodeck:
My body cannot jump six miles into the air and land on an air-ship. Even if I could, I probably woulnd't be able to pull off a six-button special combo to bring the whole thing down with a sword. Also, my control of magic would be imprecise and wouldn't feel like I'm actually reaching into my soul and pulling out a lightning bolt.

It can also be used to train your body.

Matrix:
Everything is translated to input censors in your brain... which is exactly how it's already done in real life. But a computer can tell your brain that you can direct electricity through your hand or that you can fly. Also... the computer can give you the exact time of day when you think about it and can also have you think about the time when needed. If you're particularly lazy... it can also MAKE you feel like not playing the game anymore and maybe go to sleep for work tomorrow.

This leads open to being able to train your mind so that you're less lazy, feel the need to eat better and excercise... etc...

---

I vote for more of a matrixy form of gaming.

 

[MrNelg]

I actually found the Wii motion control thing more immersive than the regular control pad, but I did find that I got worn out more quickly, and I ended up playing not as much as I used to. I do believe that when we're all old and Gray and we do finally have the whole "VR" thing working, that motion control will be viewed as having been a complete failure but a step in the right direction.