On Kinect and PlayStation Move

[Anarchemitis]

Gaming is reaching out to different technologies and ideas. All the ideas gaming reaches out to may not be the best ideas, but at least development is not spiraling downwards towards some catastrophic pit from which it takes years to recover. [Again. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983]]
I imagine that Video Games developing as an entertainment medium [and possibly an artform] is either nearing the middle of, or end of, it's adolescence. Just because people have computers and television and planes that can travel ten times the speed of sound doesn't mean that development of how we know, recognize and participate in a medium of entertainment will progress any faster than other mediums that are already developed and mature, such as Dance or Film.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

"flight out AGAIN, valve"??

Wait.. am I reading something there? When did Valve fly Yahtzee out before?
Is this his way of slyly telling us that he DID do the voice? Is he toying with us or am I just really reading too much into things?

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

Motion controls can do things well but they need to be integrated into the gameplay, not bolted on as button substitutes.

1. Being able to aim at the screen is HUGE.

It is the equivalent of having a mouse you can use from the couch! After playing resident evil 4 and metroid prime 3 there is no way in hell I could go back to standard thumbstick aiming, it is just too primitive. But even outside of aiming the wiimote pointer is is a better tactile feel than the thumbstick/reticle combo. World of goo plays great because even though there is no haptic feedback pulling the goo balls or tossing them after a while gives a real tactile feeling. Mario galaxy where you run your 3rd person character with the numchuck and shoot with the wiimote adds another gameplay aspect. You can either aim or you can use the waggle "button" to make mario attack, but switching between both is a gameplay skill.

2. motion in gameplay can add to immersion, if it is done right

Case in point, grapple beam in in metroid prime 3. You throw it with your numchuck and pull it back to pull off enemy shields. Doing that in the middle of a firefight really puts YOU into the action. Just little things like using the motion control to pull levers or switches removes the controller abstraction as long as the motion is natural and not shoehorned in.

So yes motion control can be done well, but very few developers are able to pull it off.

 

[Uber Waddles]

Ya know, I really like when Yahtzee stays to his humor instead of trying to act like a genius; these articles almost always irk me.

To Yahtzee: Immersion is in the eyes of the beholder. You might not find motion controls immersive, thats fine. But, simply put, other people do.

Just because you don't like the Wii doesn't make it utter garbage. Just because Nintendo didnt do the technology right doesnt mean Sony or Microsoft wont. The way I see it, your controller arguement is flawed. Controllers and motion controls are neither more or less immersive; the only difference is your arms are slightly more active with one option then with another. Let me give you an example; Rock Band. Now, according to your reviews, you suck at it, but people who actually can play the game successfully have no problem letting it draw them in on their perfered instrument. Naturally, moving your hands up and down the neck of the guitar, strumming and hammer-on sections are a larger movement then twitching my thumb and forefinger. Further more; if you knew how to drum, try getting your hands to do two completely different things at the exact same time. Then add your foot into the mix.

My point being, immersion is what you make of it. I honestly think you lack immersion for Wii games simply because you're telling yourself "this sucks"; or your giving a bad review to make your audience go "hahaha its funny cuz teh wii iz 4 kidz". I have no problem with immersion when playing most Wii games; and when it comes down to it, the "deal breakers" are always in tandum with other games that fail to keep me immersed: bad controls, glitches, annoying gameplay elements. The whole "Wii hardware not working properly" arguement seems to me like someone didnt configure their Wii right, I almost never get issues with mine (and I would like to further add that my 360 controller will randomly disconnect whenever it feels tempermental; more so then the mistake of my Wiimote flails.)

As for the rant you did on 3D movies... Some 3D movies arent bad, as long as they use the technology right. Its a nifty little gimmick, but definetly not something I would look forward to in a TV. As for the Nintendo 3DS, that has potential. Its quite a powerful machine, and it does 3D the way it should be done: WITHOUT GLASSES. You claim the advertising shot itself in the foot; but where I come from, any place that sells games usually has a demo console on Display. 3D is viable, as long as the TV's come with a standard mode and could manipulate the screen to make the screen work without glasses (possible, but extremely hard in large scales).

As for my opinions: I think that if the Move and Kinect can pull off what they're going for, they will be successful. $150 for Kinect is a little steep, and there is literally one game that interests me. The Move has some potential as well, although its release games look generic. Either way, Ill wait to judge them until after they come out, like a reviewer should...

 

[DenSomKastade]

never play demos huh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWS9_nrKOPA
don't forget your roots! =P

 

[Tom Phoenix]

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.

This is a misconception I accidentally had as well (due to the name), but the 3DS is not just a new DS. It is a completely new generation of handhelds, sort of like how the Gameboy Advance was a whole new level from the Gameboy/Gameboy Colour.

Anyway, I partially disagree with Yahtzee. Motion controls can be immersive in the fact that you mimick the movement your character is supposed to be doing, which is about as direct of an input as you can get. That said, motion controls are suspectible to problems in movement detection, which can quickly break that immersion.

Also, Yahtzee, the 3DS uses an autostereoscopic view.

 

[SaintWaldo]

You seem to ignore the advantage of a steering wheel controller for a driving game. There's a reason one prefers this to a thumb controller. There's a reason I'd rather swing my arm back, and then forward again to model a golf swing rather than twitch my thumb back and forth: because I already have PHYSICAL skill based around those motions. If they ever figure out force feedback on the waggle like they did on the wheel, brother, holodeck will be here.

See, here's the "hardcore" conceit laid bare: you assert the 2-thumb system is where we should stop because it's the one you get the most out of WHEN PLAYING GAMES YOU LIKE. Read: Shooters, platformers and shmups. Tweak the notion of how a controller is modeling input and you all collapse into trembling balls of mewling excuses and insults like a bunch of kittens tasked with peeling several hundred tomatoes. I'm looking RIGHT AT the reviewers of Lair, BTW.

Look, I get what you mean about waggle not solving everything and I agree, to the extent that NOTHING solves everything. But it's childish to assert that Move or Kinect or even the original Wiimote itself were ever claiming to solve everything. I mean, two of those controllers still have buttons. Only Kinect is going full-tilt aether on anyone, and if you played any of the EyeToy stuff in the past 5 years (or the RIDE board this past xmas), you know EXACTLY where that thing is going. The thing is, waggle WILL solve SOME things, and do so better than 2-thumbs for a significant number of people. I know that kind of qualified statement is hard to make funny or controversial while spoken rapidly over a yellow background, but, hey, I have a COMPLETELY different job description, don't I?

(cue music)

 

[Solidplasma]

Ya know, I really like when Yahtzee stays to his humor instead of trying to act like a genius; these articles almost always irk me.

To Yahtzee: Immersion is in the eyes of the beholder. You might not find motion controls immersive, thats fine. But, simply put, other people do.

Just because you don't like the Wii doesn't make it utter garbage. Just because Nintendo didnt do the technology right doesnt mean Sony or Microsoft wont. The way I see it, your controller arguement is flawed. Controllers and motion controls are neither more or less immersive; the only difference is your arms are slightly more active with one option then with another. Let me give you an example; Rock Band. Now, according to your reviews, you suck at it, but people who actually can play the game successfully have no problem letting it draw them in on their perfered instrument. Naturally, moving your hands up and down the neck of the guitar, strumming and hammer-on sections are a larger movement then twitching my thumb and forefinger. Further more; if you knew how to drum, try getting your hands to do two completely different things at the exact same time. Then add your foot into the mix.

My point being, immersion is what you make of it. I honestly think you lack immersion for Wii games simply because you're telling yourself "this sucks"; or your giving a bad review to make your audience go "hahaha its funny cuz teh wii iz 4 kidz". I have no problem with immersion when playing most Wii games; and when it comes down to it, the "deal breakers" are always in tandum with other games that fail to keep me immersed: bad controls, glitches, annoying gameplay elements. The whole "Wii hardware not working properly" arguement seems to me like someone didnt configure their Wii right, I almost never get issues with mine (and I would like to further add that my 360 controller will randomly disconnect whenever it feels tempermental; more so then the mistake of my Wiimote flails.)

As for the rant you did on 3D movies... Some 3D movies arent bad, as long as they use the technology right. Its a nifty little gimmick, but definetly not something I would look forward to in a TV. As for the Nintendo 3DS, that has potential. Its quite a powerful machine, and it does 3D the way it should be done: WITHOUT GLASSES. You claim the advertising shot itself in the foot; but where I come from, any place that sells games usually has a demo console on Display. 3D is viable, as long as the TV's come with a standard mode and could manipulate the screen to make the screen work without glasses (possible, but extremely hard in large scales).

As for my opinions: I think that if the Move and Kinect can pull off what they're going for, they will be successful. $150 for Kinect is a little steep, and there is literally one game that interests me. The Move has some potential as well, although its release games look generic. Either way, Ill wait to judge them until after they come out, like a reviewer should...

Wow. I was going to make a post with all these exact points, but Uber Waddles said it better than I ever could. Also, I completely agree about these articles. If you want to deface everything to be funny, go ahead. But if you want to convince us that you actually believe half of the self-contradicting crap you post in Extra Puntuation, at least be fucking realistic. For example, if we do invent the matrix, things like motion controls will definitely be early prototypes. As for 3D, are you saying we should design a way to control photons into specific shapes, when fooling our own brains is perfectly satisfactory (for normal people)? Sure "gimmicks" are just that right now, but what if they become commonplace? Technicolor may have been a "gimmick" once upon a time, but now we consider media without it positively primitive. Besides, what is complaining going to do about it? You think that what anyone says really matters? What is the point of continually defying something that you could work alongside? So, please, drop the act.


No, don't drop the act; I was just blowing off steam. The rest I stand by, however.

 

[cikame]

I think Yahtzee should be doing the voice for the little blue ball device thing in Portal 2, the guy they've got at the moment sounds like a stand in but it's a pretty deep video so i guess he isn't.

I'm british, i'm not saying i could do better but they can definately do better than what they've got now.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

If games look as fun as sorcery in the future than I have no problem with the Move. Kinect on the other hand was an unexpected fail. Zero games that interest me. I can imagine myself playing a roleplaying game as a sword and shield wielding protagonist using the Move where I can actually hack and slash on my own. Personally I would find that more satisfying than pressing the square button over and over.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

What this is is the shortest possible connection between intention and in-game action. "Shoot that guy," think you, and lo is that guy shot. Thought → action. That's what technology should be working towards. Standard controllers have a far shorter brain-action delay than motion controls. The movement of our actual, physical bodies is minimized to the tiny finger-jerks it takes to press a button. Thought → tiny movement → action. You can't yet put your mind wholly into the game, but you can channel it through your thumbs while the rest of your body lies as dead and motionless as it would in our hypothetical future Matrix containment tubes. It takes a little while to get used to it, and figure out what buttons apply to what actions, but hey, it took a while for you to learn how to read, too.

I'd counter point that even though the shortest way to swing a sword at someone might be a button-press, it would be infinitely more immersive to swing your arm whilst holding a sword-shaped peripheral, and have your avatar mimic your movements exactly. No amount of experience wiggling a joystick and mashing a couple of buttons is going to make it more realistic or immersive, that's just a barrier between the control interface and your desires.

Take, say, Legend of Zelda: any of the 3D ones. Press A and Link swings his sword horizontally, press it three times and his combo finishes with an upward slash. Lock-on and attack and he'll do a downward jumping attack. Lock-on, press forwards and attack and he'll do a jab. But what if I want to swipe at an enemy's legs? Block with my sword? Back-swing into an enemy's head? There isn't a button for that, just as there's no button for 'spin around to the side of the target and slice him in half' - at least, not without some QTE, and not in Zelda.

The point is, whilst buttons allow you to do things in the game quickly and easily through an abstract control interface, the potential of motion controlling, especially controller-less motion controlling is that you can do things the developers didn't have to explicitly program, perform animations that they didn't create, and interact with the world in a more natural manner than simply pressing a button and watching things happen on the screen.

After all, isn't the disparity between the button-press and the onscreen action what really rankles about quicktime events?

Exactly /thread

 

[nik3daz]

Shouldn't good controls work towards a more natural path from thought -> action? I mean hell, when I swing a bat in real life, there's a big motion. If I have the choice between a bunch of buttons to adjust different aspects of my swing, then tinkering with those is obviously more effort than just doing it.

I'm pretty sure the point of motion controls is just to add an extra input. If devs choose to try to emulate action, they'll inevitably fail in some aspect but there are some nice uses for motion controls as just an extra, hands free input.

For example, I'm totally fine with Galaxy having waggle for spin. Why not? It's just like an extra button except when I want Mario to flail, I flick my wrist. It's effortless, it's intuitive and it leaves my fingers free to do their own thing.

Similarly with NSMB there are those nifty motion controlled platforms. It's just a handy way of adding an extra input while keeping your fingers free to actually jump around and whatnot.

On the other hand, when you have stupid Mad World controls where waggle is there for no reason, it's a pretty glaring flaw.

Likewise, in movies, Toy Story 3 had great 3d. It was subtle, it added depth. The only gripe I have is the glasses. It works because it's not noticeable. It kind of goes for the "there's a room on the other side of that screen" thing that Yahtzee's talking about.

It's the Avatars of the 3d movies that annoy me. When 3d tries to steal the spotlight instead of working as a team player.

I reckon the motion controls and 3d aren't bad in principle but overzealous devs and directors think that the hip new gimmick should be fully "utilized" ruin it by putting it where it doesn't belong. Subtlety is key and they should really be focusing on making the effect as natural and unobtrusive as possible. Ideally, players would be able to play motion games without using motion gaming but deeper gameplay could be tweaked by using motions. (Something like an FPS where tilt gives a bit of lean, like, a few degrees. Just enough to be useful for shooting through cracks in a wall or something, not enough to be blatantly obvious when you're not using it.)

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Thing is, I can't think of many other examples. I'm also interested by the kinect game by the creator of Rez, because it looks like something that "gets" the device it's working on, and makes you "swim" instead of "slash". The long movement is justified here. But I didn't play it, so maybe I'm wrong.

You're thinking of "Child of Eden" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyTirhT5fak], and it's exactly the same thing I I had in mind as the one type of game that would definitely work well on something like the Kinect (although you'd need a huge honking TV to get the same effect as in the trailer there). Games where you make natural, fluid, tracking movements- there's where a motion controller (at least one worth a damn) would shine.

But I think we all know that that sort of game would be well into the minority. Publishers want to flood the market with already-familiar games with motion controls tacked on ("Madden '12! Feel like you're actually throwing the ball!") and gamers will stay away in droves, primarily because if they felt inclined to go through the motions of throwing a football for an hour, they'd go outside and actually throw a football. (Non-gamers picking the game up would inevitably hurt themselves by juking a tackler and crashing into a coffee table.)

What? Wheatley sounds nothing like Yahtzee! Silly people...

Well, there was that one time [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1472-Dantes-Inferno] where Yahtzee didn't sound like Yahtzee, so... who knows? Maybe we'll find him hanging around the sick ward in hopes of picking up his ticket to voice-acting stardom.

 

[shMerker]

Has anyone else read the article in the latest Popular Science on this new game system in Las Vegas that was previously a Military and Police training tool.

It's essentially a giant hamster ball on a track with a virtual reality headset, you move and the ball turns and moves your avatar. It sounds much more immersive than motion controls or 3D, but it isn't any closer to the Thought -> In Game Action than a regular controller.

Because that model wouldn't be useful to military training. When a soldier gets out on the battlefield he uses his own body, so that's what he needs to be trained with.

 

[Giest4life]

If done right, I don't think motion control is a gimmicky thing. It's just a different platform of gaming altogether being forced on regular consoles. Think of this as the difference between portable devices and primary devices; yes I use both, but only in certain situations, I would much rather play my 360 than my PSP all day, but when I'm in the toilet, I've very little choice in that matter. There is no way I will replace my main gaming experience by making myself look like as ass in front of the tele, but I could imagine quiet a few things that can be really, really fun using the motion controls, provided that they are done right.

I have high hopes for Kinect, and while I do know that they won't live up the hype I'm willing to give it a chance.

 

[carpathic]

Thing is, don't all great things have to come from somewhere? WHo is to say that these motion controllers aren't the next step toward the incredible immersive video game.

Course, we could equally speculate that they step in the wrong direction...

 

[Wicky_42]

words

Exactly /thread

I think that's the first time I've had that response - thanks!

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

Hmm- I could see another ultimate future technology for gaming that is different from what Yahtzee said- virtual reality. You stand without any sort of special equipment, only your body, similar to Kinect. The console scans you and you have 1:1 control of the game using your body. You do it irl, it happens in the game. Think of the way the people in G Gundam control their mechs- it'd be like that. I believe that this sort of things is what motion controls are trying to imitate, and I honestly do believe that they have a place, but are overused. Like CGI. There have been 3 traditionally animated films released to theaters in recent memory (The Simpsons Movie, The Princess and the Frog, and Ponyo). That's not enough.

 

[ILPPendant]

Yahzee, it's "prophesy", not "prophesize".

 

[Kingjackl]

Motion controls aren't entirely useless. I've heard claims that Kinect could revolutionise user interface with the whole Minority Report/Iron Man touch-screen interface. A good idea might be to play games with an ordinary controller and use Kinect for the menus and so-forth. We'll just have to wait and see, I suppose.

Also, I much prefer the Wiimote/Move style controls for FPS's to the standard controls on a console. After playing Metroid Prime 3 like that, playing CoD4 with a typical 360 controller felt clunky and awkward.