On Kinect and PlayStation Move
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I actually think that controls for computer games have been going backwards for a while now. That is because the world is now ruled by consoles and console owners are forced to use joypads to play certain types of games which joypads are not suited to. Unfortunately that type of game is the most popular type, FPS.
This is not a dig at joypads or consoles. Joypads as a general controller are very good and can do a great job for most games types, driving games, plane games etc. But for FPS and RTS games they are shocking as controllers. They are nowhere close to the accuracy of a mouse. And yes people can use them to a high level for aiming, but until someone wins a game championship using a joypad in an FPS vs others using mice, I won't be convinced joypads are better.
So why bring this up. Well I think Microsoft and Sony would have been better served trying to workout how to bring mouse like accuracy into their controllers rather than spending so much on in accurate and laggy motion controllers. I don't understand console makers hatred of the mouse. They allow you to use other controllers that fit the game you are playing, like wheel controllers for driving games. Why not a mouse controller for FPS. I know one reason was that they wanted to differentiate consoles from PC's. Well that was a good argument when consoles just played games and did not play movies or allow you to surf the internet. I make no bones about the consoles having won as far as popularity vs PC. So why not take the one thing PC's are better at, before it dies as a gaming platform.
And before you ask I am not a fan of then having to us a keyboard for movement etc either. So a controller with an analogue thumb stick for movement and some kind or trackball or track pad for aiming would be the ideal. Or some better idea. Something that give the same functionality as the mouse and Logitech G13 combo I use for FPS and I believe is the ultimate why of controlling these games. BTW, I do own and Xbox 360 controller that I use for games like Assassins Creed etc.
This is not a dig at joypads or consoles. Joypads as a general controller are very good and can do a great job for most games types, driving games, plane games etc. But for FPS and RTS games they are shocking as controllers. They are nowhere close to the accuracy of a mouse. And yes people can use them to a high level for aiming, but until someone wins a game championship using a joypad in an FPS vs others using mice, I won't be convinced joypads are better.
So why bring this up. Well I think Microsoft and Sony would have been better served trying to workout how to bring mouse like accuracy into their controllers rather than spending so much on in accurate and laggy motion controllers. I don't understand console makers hatred of the mouse. They allow you to use other controllers that fit the game you are playing, like wheel controllers for driving games. Why not a mouse controller for FPS. I know one reason was that they wanted to differentiate consoles from PC's. Well that was a good argument when consoles just played games and did not play movies or allow you to surf the internet. I make no bones about the consoles having won as far as popularity vs PC. So why not take the one thing PC's are better at, before it dies as a gaming platform.
And before you ask I am not a fan of then having to us a keyboard for movement etc either. So a controller with an analogue thumb stick for movement and some kind or trackball or track pad for aiming would be the ideal. Or some better idea. Something that give the same functionality as the mouse and Logitech G13 combo I use for FPS and I believe is the ultimate why of controlling these games. BTW, I do own and Xbox 360 controller that I use for games like Assassins Creed etc.
Okay, forgive me if someone's already posted on the topic, but there's a contradiction in the logic:
"Motion controls, meanwhile, are thought → large movement → however long it takes for the console to register that movement → action. It's not immersive, it's going in completely the opposite direction to being immersive."
If I understand this statement correctly, it would appear that your primary objection to a motion controller is that since there's a delay from when the motion is made to when the game registers the motion, the delay will prevent immersion.
This logic ignores the elephant in the room that the current controller ITSELF is ANTI-immersive. Your standard controller with X, Y, A, B, Circle, Triangle, etc. buttons and its two analog sticks and whatnot is a bewildering array of strangeness that doesn't follow intuitively. I still don't know why they don't label the buttons something that makes sense, like North-South-East-West, so I could freakin' FIND them. I'm a twenty-year veteran of video gaming, and I kept getting killed in Brutal Legend because I couldn't tell the Y button from the A button fast enough. A player loses all sense of immersion in Heavy Rain when they have to look away from the screen and down at the controller to figure out which one is the square button.
Whereas in Zelda: Twilight Princess, the motion for drawing the sword was simply to flick the Wiimote. To swing the sword later, another flick of the Wiimote. The action felt like swinging a sword at someone. It was easy to remember, and it was fun. And most of all, it was more immersive than any button press or trigger-flick.
The Wiimote does one thing better than all of its rivals -- the shooter. You yourself have said that the console-shooter can't stand up to the PC-shooter because it lacks a mouse. The Wiimote lets you point directly at your widescreen TV and plant a bullet exactly where you want it. And by definition, pointing at the screen is more immersive than pushing a little plastic puck somewhere near the screen.
The issue here is with the logic. You're arguing that motion controls are anti-immersive because your sense of immersion breaks when you want to blame the controller's lag time for your failure to accomplish something in the game. That is a valid complaint. But it's no different than a sticky button on a controller -- bad equipment is simply bad equipment. When a motion control is spot on, it's far more intuitive than "Press Y to not die". Raising a sword to block a bullet feels more real when you're raising something to block.
Granted, the current crop of motion-controlled games are far, far too gimmicky. Then again, the video game market right now is dripping with gimmickry, as the still-enduring "quick time event" is still present. (Motion-controller or button-controller, it didn't matter to Ninja Blade -- even if you pushed right, the dodge was always to the left.) As the Wii is maturing, there's a lot more shooters coming out, and the wiimote-with-analog numchuk is simply more intuitive than shooting by moving a little airplane flight stick.
The motion-controller is seen as the future because the current controller is complicated to the point of baroque ridiculousness, where only a hardcore gamer can be bothered to memorize every button. What we really need are games that work with the motion controls, instead of gimmicks that just happen to use motion controls. Oh, and more responsive motion controls wouldn't hurt, either.
"Motion controls, meanwhile, are thought → large movement → however long it takes for the console to register that movement → action. It's not immersive, it's going in completely the opposite direction to being immersive."
If I understand this statement correctly, it would appear that your primary objection to a motion controller is that since there's a delay from when the motion is made to when the game registers the motion, the delay will prevent immersion.
This logic ignores the elephant in the room that the current controller ITSELF is ANTI-immersive. Your standard controller with X, Y, A, B, Circle, Triangle, etc. buttons and its two analog sticks and whatnot is a bewildering array of strangeness that doesn't follow intuitively. I still don't know why they don't label the buttons something that makes sense, like North-South-East-West, so I could freakin' FIND them. I'm a twenty-year veteran of video gaming, and I kept getting killed in Brutal Legend because I couldn't tell the Y button from the A button fast enough. A player loses all sense of immersion in Heavy Rain when they have to look away from the screen and down at the controller to figure out which one is the square button.
Whereas in Zelda: Twilight Princess, the motion for drawing the sword was simply to flick the Wiimote. To swing the sword later, another flick of the Wiimote. The action felt like swinging a sword at someone. It was easy to remember, and it was fun. And most of all, it was more immersive than any button press or trigger-flick.
The Wiimote does one thing better than all of its rivals -- the shooter. You yourself have said that the console-shooter can't stand up to the PC-shooter because it lacks a mouse. The Wiimote lets you point directly at your widescreen TV and plant a bullet exactly where you want it. And by definition, pointing at the screen is more immersive than pushing a little plastic puck somewhere near the screen.
The issue here is with the logic. You're arguing that motion controls are anti-immersive because your sense of immersion breaks when you want to blame the controller's lag time for your failure to accomplish something in the game. That is a valid complaint. But it's no different than a sticky button on a controller -- bad equipment is simply bad equipment. When a motion control is spot on, it's far more intuitive than "Press Y to not die". Raising a sword to block a bullet feels more real when you're raising something to block.
Granted, the current crop of motion-controlled games are far, far too gimmicky. Then again, the video game market right now is dripping with gimmickry, as the still-enduring "quick time event" is still present. (Motion-controller or button-controller, it didn't matter to Ninja Blade -- even if you pushed right, the dodge was always to the left.) As the Wii is maturing, there's a lot more shooters coming out, and the wiimote-with-analog numchuk is simply more intuitive than shooting by moving a little airplane flight stick.
The motion-controller is seen as the future because the current controller is complicated to the point of baroque ridiculousness, where only a hardcore gamer can be bothered to memorize every button. What we really need are games that work with the motion controls, instead of gimmicks that just happen to use motion controls. Oh, and more responsive motion controls wouldn't hurt, either.
Norman... not playing a game since the NES and being a 20 year gamer are two very different things. We've had near a decade of Xbox controllers where the Y is the top button and the A is the bottom button. So either you're lying about being a veteran or you're an idiot with brain damage. I haven't played any playstation game for months now and I can tell you that the X button is the bottom one and the Triangle button is the top one... O to the right and Square to the left. That's been there for THREE consoles... they don't mix them up every few years. And even IF they did, you get the buttons down after two games.
Your argument for the Wiimote is based on you being an idiot.
And you don't figure out a game by what the lable of the button is anyway! You get it down pretty early in the game, and after a combined time of 5 hours, it's muscle memmory unless you only play for 5 minutes every week.
The argument against motion sensors being unimmersive is biological. To the brain, all movement is one quick electrical pulse sent to a muscle... not a quick message to a muscle that creates a movement which creates another signal for another movement, that's not a direct flow of electrical pulse. You can make the same argument against button controls... but a small twitch is more easily interpreted as just another medium for the pulse than an entirely seperate flailing of your arms.
You also get some disjointed abomination of "immersion" where your arm flailings match something on TV... but you aren't walking anywhere. You aren't really interracting with anything in the game and flailing around your living room only makes that more apparent.
Edit: Oh yeah! There is a different label system for buttons... IT'S CALLED COLORS. If you're too dense to memorize the position of shapes, they gave you COLORS to memorize instead. Granted the red O and the pink Square on PS controllers might confuse your hardwired brain. I'd insult you more but people look down on badgering the mentally disabled.
Your argument for the Wiimote is based on you being an idiot.
And you don't figure out a game by what the lable of the button is anyway! You get it down pretty early in the game, and after a combined time of 5 hours, it's muscle memmory unless you only play for 5 minutes every week.
The argument against motion sensors being unimmersive is biological. To the brain, all movement is one quick electrical pulse sent to a muscle... not a quick message to a muscle that creates a movement which creates another signal for another movement, that's not a direct flow of electrical pulse. You can make the same argument against button controls... but a small twitch is more easily interpreted as just another medium for the pulse than an entirely seperate flailing of your arms.
You also get some disjointed abomination of "immersion" where your arm flailings match something on TV... but you aren't walking anywhere. You aren't really interracting with anything in the game and flailing around your living room only makes that more apparent.
Edit: Oh yeah! There is a different label system for buttons... IT'S CALLED COLORS. If you're too dense to memorize the position of shapes, they gave you COLORS to memorize instead. Granted the red O and the pink Square on PS controllers might confuse your hardwired brain. I'd insult you more but people look down on badgering the mentally disabled.
i beg to differ.MikeTheElf said:
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.'theklng said:
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.
I'll just add: I'm not sure I want immersion.Uber Waddles said:
I've spent four hours or so this week playing "Scrap Metal" on XBLA. that game is not only not realistic, but also not particularly immersive. The controls could be better, but aside from that taking me out of "the zone," there's not much that moves me in and out of this whole "immersion" deal.
I want more intuitive controls. I want smooth gameplay. I'm not sure I want immersion. At least, not on a wide scale. Maybe I've got the wrong idea on immersion, but most of my games don't really seem to immerse me. The whole "thought>>>action" portion sounds great, but it doesn't immerse me.
On a similar note, the thing I dislike about the Wii is that most of the time, I just want to play games on my couch. If possible, with 1-3 friends. Preferably, in the same room. I know split-screen is the devil now, because people only buy one copy of the game when they could be milked for 2-16 between them, but screw that. I've played Wii games with two players in my apartment, and even larger spaces, and I'm always worried the spazz next to me is going to take out my eye. Or I'll take out theirs, because it's not like I'm some super-coordinated operator either. Considering the inaccuracy of the base Wiimote, you sometimes do end up making larger flails when smaller ones should suffice. Now, maybe the glowy ball tracking system of Move will help solve some of that, but at the end, only my fears of KOing my friends.
Some ideas are great. I love the drums in Rock Band and Guitar Hero, but between the space and the fact that my neighbours don't appreciate it, I rarely play them. there are cool Wii games, but because they require space and activity I'm not always willing to give, my console is now being used by my mother for Yoga and whatever else she enjoys for physical fitness. but while the Wii could be good for shooters or certain other types of active games, the hardware itself limits it (Sensor bar, lack of 1:1 on the base unit, etc), and even if you can appreciate it, you're not necessarily going to use it. It's going to be even worse with nay game that Kinect has that wants me to move around, because if I have to jump and bob I'm probably getting into the drum kit territory.
Regardless, the controller works for me, and I enjoy it. I don't need no stinking immersion: Competent controls suffice for me. The idea that the point of the interface should push towards greater immersion is, in and of itself, kind of poor.
The current motion controls are a novelty. Wii, Move, Kinect. Eventually, either a less novel approach will develop out of them or motion controls will die. Personally, as long as something like Kinect is optional and I still get my couch games, I hope things like it take off. Voice control and navigation by hand seem like great ideas. And it might actually get Yahtzee the immersion he wants.
Then again, I have a 7.1 surround system. And the rationale for more channels is immersion, too. I'm not particularly sitting there enthralled by the extra speakers. I'm still fine with stereo music and stereo film for that matter. 3-D is cool, and everyone should probably check out at least one well done movie. It's not all that necessary to gamers, though.
Apologies if this is all over the place, it's 5 AM and I should have gone to bed several hours ago.
This is also why VHS outsold DVD for years, until the format was actually killed off officially by studios. And why it took HD DVD and Blu Ray over a year to get combined sales greater than that of said dead (and at that point, LONG dead) format. This is why the best selling console is the one that uses the lowest resolution, has the worst specs, and still uses DVD (Yes, so does the 360, I know). This is why DVD audio was all but abandoned, along with SACD, and non-disc formats.MikeTheElf said:
You can sell shiny to some people, and graphics are a decent department, but it's far from the end-all, or even close. Not even in the realm of consoles does that work.
Malisteen said:
Portal needs a sequel if lots of people want a sequel it's just good business
Portal is a fun puzzle game with a sence of humor I don't consider it to be anything more it certainly shouldn't be considered untouchable
Portal 2 looks better in everyway the only new thing I don't care about is those tunnels, the best new additions are the Aerial Faith Plate and Repulsion gel
wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Here I thought the theories and opinions I formed about motion control and 3D gaming were unique.
Fuck that.
Fuck that.
I have to say I completely disagree with Yahtzee's theory of immersion.
Immersion is not me thinking something and then that something happening. It's me performing an action and then having that action replicated in the virtual world. I'm not a fan of the Wii since it's just designed so poorly (and there are so few worthwhile entries), but I do think that motion controls are the future.
Or, at least, part of the future. We still have to overcome the obstacle of having to look into a TV to see the game world instead of seeing it through a headset or something.
Immersion is not me thinking something and then that something happening. It's me performing an action and then having that action replicated in the virtual world. I'm not a fan of the Wii since it's just designed so poorly (and there are so few worthwhile entries), but I do think that motion controls are the future.
Or, at least, part of the future. We still have to overcome the obstacle of having to look into a TV to see the game world instead of seeing it through a headset or something.
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.Zachary Amaranth said:
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..
It's nice to see the opinions I have espoused for months have been legitimized in a respectable publication. Motion controls and 3D are little more than parlor tricks, substitutes for, well, actual substance. Spend an extra few dollars on hiring competent voice actors or script writers instead of tech that requires me to "waggle" or wear giant goggles so I can see images 4 inches closer than normal.
MikeTheElf said:
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.
Yes I agree, I'd go with the matrix form too. The problem with that is it's REALLY FUCKING HARD. The brain-plug kind of stuff is just getting off the ground and is still really slow and inconsistent. You have to think for 30 seconds just to make one letter. The holodeck-type will be possible first.Pebkio said:
There are probably other directions immersion could go as well, although i can't really think of what those might be.
Keep in mind that this is ValVe we're talking about who's only disappointing sequel I can think of is L4D2 and even then I enjoyed it and even prefered it over the first game.True Nero said:
I see this trend differently: not as a step on the way to Matrix-like immersion, but as a step on the way to outdoor, fullbody gaming. We're *so* close right now, we just have to wait for someone to put the pieces together. It's immersion not by putting your mind in the game, but by overwriting the outside world with game logic. Soon kids will be running around, nearly knocking me over, talking about weird things that aren't there, and I can't wait.
Keep in mind that colour TV was once just a gimmick. The gimmick may be ditracting for some time but if it becomes a mainstay and we get used to it we'll probably miss it a little if it gets taken away.