On Kinect and PlayStation Move
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
I personally love the Wii for this reason. Having a bunch of people in a room together playing a game is great. Maybe I believe that socializing with real people is better than playing with random people on the internet (I realize that complaining about it on an internet forum is counterproductive but I feel the need to rant and that's what the internet is for).jak1165 said:
That being said I wish more games would allow multiple people to play on the same console. Castle Crashers was a fun group activity and bomberman for the PS3 allowed up to 7 players(never did more than 4 for lack of controllers)
The thing I liked the most on the 360 this year is that Gears of War 3 is going to allow 4 player story mode. I really hope that means 4 player split screen but I don't know yet.
I think adding motion controls to the 360 and PS3 is really missing the mark. Why would someone spend $150 to add motion controls to a system when you could just buy a Wii for $200 and have a plethora of games already available.
I seem to recall Movie Bob (I think) thinking it was an Australian accent. That's just going to farColdStorage said:
That said, giving the robot an actual Aussie accent would be awesome, especially if they get the idiom right ie. good natured abuse.
"Thought -> in game action" is a novel thought but not really useful in practice.
You can't just think "o, see that guy, shoot him in the face." That takes the reality of reality out of video games. There is human error in real life because our bodies cannot do exactly what our brain wants it to do. People practice sports or shooting or anything else to refine our bodies down to doing almost what our brains want.
Yahtzee is way off here. Yes these motion controllers are gimmicky but they are probably moving us in the right direction. Full immersion isn't "thought -> action" but "thought -> movement -> action" (with movement -> action happening simultaneously).
I understand what Yathzee is trying to say but its not realistic. Whats the fun in a FPS where u place bullets exactly where u want 100% of the time? There's no human error. If motion controls progress at a good pace then in a few years we might have a legitimately awesome device.
3D in movies now is pretty shitty. Same as motion controls in games. But think if in the future you are actually surrounded by the movie and can turn your head and see things behind you. That would be amazing. Same thing as motion controls if they progress...
You can't just think "o, see that guy, shoot him in the face." That takes the reality of reality out of video games. There is human error in real life because our bodies cannot do exactly what our brain wants it to do. People practice sports or shooting or anything else to refine our bodies down to doing almost what our brains want.
Yahtzee is way off here. Yes these motion controllers are gimmicky but they are probably moving us in the right direction. Full immersion isn't "thought -> action" but "thought -> movement -> action" (with movement -> action happening simultaneously).
I understand what Yathzee is trying to say but its not realistic. Whats the fun in a FPS where u place bullets exactly where u want 100% of the time? There's no human error. If motion controls progress at a good pace then in a few years we might have a legitimately awesome device.
3D in movies now is pretty shitty. Same as motion controls in games. But think if in the future you are actually surrounded by the movie and can turn your head and see things behind you. That would be amazing. Same thing as motion controls if they progress...
I still don't see how 3D is a gimmick. For some reason, it feels like people can only think of 3D as those red-and-blue glasses things you could see on TV, where they would make one long object (like a sub sandwich or a wrench) pop out of the screen. Woo! It pops out of the screen! Excitement! No, that's bullshit and I don't care for it.
I'm thinking of a moment when a kid handed me his DS to beat a level in Super Mario 64 DS for him. I was gallantly leaping platform to platform, progressing through the level at a good pace, when all of a sudden Mario disappeared behind a platform I had leapt to. When I did that massive horizontal leap to that platform, Mario happened to be at just the right angle so that he was JUST behind the platform when it came time to land on it, sending him screaming into the abyss below. With the 3DS, I'd never have to worry about making that sort of mistake again.
I spent a lot of time in Super Mario Galaxy 2 trying to wrestle the camera into the right position so I could see exactly where the next platform was. For platforming games, at the very least, 3D will be a huge help.
Also, 3D just plain looks better. I will concede that it probably isn't some incredible leap forward in gaming, but insinuating that it's in any way a step backward is simply not true unless you consider every graphical upgrade that doesn't have some other practical purpose to be a step backward as well.
I'm thinking of a moment when a kid handed me his DS to beat a level in Super Mario 64 DS for him. I was gallantly leaping platform to platform, progressing through the level at a good pace, when all of a sudden Mario disappeared behind a platform I had leapt to. When I did that massive horizontal leap to that platform, Mario happened to be at just the right angle so that he was JUST behind the platform when it came time to land on it, sending him screaming into the abyss below. With the 3DS, I'd never have to worry about making that sort of mistake again.
I spent a lot of time in Super Mario Galaxy 2 trying to wrestle the camera into the right position so I could see exactly where the next platform was. For platforming games, at the very least, 3D will be a huge help.
Also, 3D just plain looks better. I will concede that it probably isn't some incredible leap forward in gaming, but insinuating that it's in any way a step backward is simply not true unless you consider every graphical upgrade that doesn't have some other practical purpose to be a step backward as well.
'Only the most determined joy-killers' are pointing out that Move and Kinect aren't the next great step forward for the industry? Well, if that's true, then I must be some kind of remorseless joy assassin.
Disagree however strongly you want, but I don't think the video game industry fell into the major slump it's in because there was some sort of pressing shortage of expensive, low-utility hardware gimmicks. Forgive me if this sounds remarkably fatuous, but might the Big Three find themselves better off if they rejected the idea that video games and their hardware represent some sort of colossal pack mule for expensive and often restrictive new technology, and instead as an entertainment and artistic medium? That perhaps the point of the medium is not to provide a platform for new product but is, itself a product worthy of care, analysis, and appreciation from developer and consumer alike? That the waning interest in the industry and the tough economic climate might prove a terrible time to introduce expensive, low-utility clutter, but a golden opportunity to scale back and develop more simple, less expensive games that focus on the exploration of the medium's utility as a form of art and entertainment?
A common criticism of the industry by people that don't play games is that video games have, so far, at least, not really proven themselves to be anything more than the sum of their hardware and software; that they are, both currently and potentially, much closer to mere toys than a sophisticated medium. What you or I believe on that point is pretty irrelevant, because guess what? The people that make all your games believe it. They believe it because most video game consumers believe it, too. That is where the money has been pretty much since the birth of the industry, and popular and critical acclaim mean relatively little if they don't have any direct connection with that sweet, sweet cashflow.
So remember what I always say: express your opinion with your wallet. If you ***** tirelessly about developers, products, and games but then buy them all anyway, that doesn't really make any sort of difference. If you opt out of financially supporting products you don't like, and that ends up making some sort of difference, good for you. And if it doesn't make any difference at all because only you, me, and a few other cantankerous curmudgeons ever gave a tinker's damn, then maybe the industry just isn't for you in the first place.
Disagree however strongly you want, but I don't think the video game industry fell into the major slump it's in because there was some sort of pressing shortage of expensive, low-utility hardware gimmicks. Forgive me if this sounds remarkably fatuous, but might the Big Three find themselves better off if they rejected the idea that video games and their hardware represent some sort of colossal pack mule for expensive and often restrictive new technology, and instead as an entertainment and artistic medium? That perhaps the point of the medium is not to provide a platform for new product but is, itself a product worthy of care, analysis, and appreciation from developer and consumer alike? That the waning interest in the industry and the tough economic climate might prove a terrible time to introduce expensive, low-utility clutter, but a golden opportunity to scale back and develop more simple, less expensive games that focus on the exploration of the medium's utility as a form of art and entertainment?
A common criticism of the industry by people that don't play games is that video games have, so far, at least, not really proven themselves to be anything more than the sum of their hardware and software; that they are, both currently and potentially, much closer to mere toys than a sophisticated medium. What you or I believe on that point is pretty irrelevant, because guess what? The people that make all your games believe it. They believe it because most video game consumers believe it, too. That is where the money has been pretty much since the birth of the industry, and popular and critical acclaim mean relatively little if they don't have any direct connection with that sweet, sweet cashflow.
So remember what I always say: express your opinion with your wallet. If you ***** tirelessly about developers, products, and games but then buy them all anyway, that doesn't really make any sort of difference. If you opt out of financially supporting products you don't like, and that ends up making some sort of difference, good for you. And if it doesn't make any difference at all because only you, me, and a few other cantankerous curmudgeons ever gave a tinker's damn, then maybe the industry just isn't for you in the first place.
While Yahtzee is spot-on about this miserable quest towards virtual reality which the games industry is apparently attempting, I would like to point out that both motion controls and 3D screens have the potential to create games that would not be possible without them:
Motion controls: a space game, like Descent, in which the controls are actually intuitive.
3D screens: the world's first isometric platformer in which aiming your jumps isn't a huge pain in the neck.
Motion controls: a space game, like Descent, in which the controls are actually intuitive.
3D screens: the world's first isometric platformer in which aiming your jumps isn't a huge pain in the neck.
Jedi Sasquatch said:
Wow. TWO people that completely misunderstood the point.Poomanchu745 said:
That's not the point of thought control at all. Nothing in what he said implied that thought control = infallibility. You'll still need to practice your skills, it'll just mean you'll be perfecting actual gameplay skills rather than those involved in wrangling a controller. It'll be just the same as controlling the flesh, except your body will be virtual.
I would have like to have heard more on why the Move is doomed but Kinnect might stand a chance with the gimmick crowd. I would have guessed the opposite. Game controls need to be accurate, reliable, precise, and fast
Reading body movements in a room of variable lighting is a lost cause, and a huge step backward in essentially all of these control needs. But I think the Move has a chance at delivering reliable input. A mouse for some things is better than a joystick, and I think the Move might stand a chance of bringing mouse features to the couch.
You are probably right, but I would have liked to have heard more on that.
Reading body movements in a room of variable lighting is a lost cause, and a huge step backward in essentially all of these control needs. But I think the Move has a chance at delivering reliable input. A mouse for some things is better than a joystick, and I think the Move might stand a chance of bringing mouse features to the couch.
You are probably right, but I would have liked to have heard more on that.
Lot's of people (me included) consider the Wii to be to be a PS2 working on Incognito with pretend-to-be next gen gimmicks; however, Nintendo did the right thing releasing the Wii. Although developing it was a tad more expensive than both the PS3 and the XBOX360, it works on cheap hardware, thus making it cheap. When we examine sales records, we can clearly see that the Wii has definitely sold way more in both units and money collected than it's two clearly better competitors. The main reason for this is because CUSTOMERS ARE ALWAYS LOOKING TO BUY COOL LOOKING GADGETS. When people saw Wii ads they thought it was the best idea for a console ever; and it is... at least for the first semester; that's why, four years later, Wii sales started to plummet down, more so than other consoles.
Unlike most game developers, Nintendo is relying entirely on releasing a new, cheap and shortly fun console: The 3Ds. The 3Ds will most likely have the same impact the Wii did, and give Nintendo enough money to stuff their pockets, develop a new gadget and buy that caviar filled Playboy mansion they've always wanted too. Sony and Microsoft didn't think of the long term and decided to rely on the PS3 and XBOX360 respectively, but the truth is they haven't met the money that it cost them to build their consoles from scratch, that's why they're so desperate to make their own motion based controls. They aren't copying Nintendo's original way to provide entertainment, they are copying Nintendo's market idea so they can fulfill their own sick depraved fantasies only money can allow.
Specially Sony. Because they're Asian.
Unlike most game developers, Nintendo is relying entirely on releasing a new, cheap and shortly fun console: The 3Ds. The 3Ds will most likely have the same impact the Wii did, and give Nintendo enough money to stuff their pockets, develop a new gadget and buy that caviar filled Playboy mansion they've always wanted too. Sony and Microsoft didn't think of the long term and decided to rely on the PS3 and XBOX360 respectively, but the truth is they haven't met the money that it cost them to build their consoles from scratch, that's why they're so desperate to make their own motion based controls. They aren't copying Nintendo's original way to provide entertainment, they are copying Nintendo's market idea so they can fulfill their own sick depraved fantasies only money can allow.
Specially Sony. Because they're Asian.
I have to disagree that Move, at the very least, is a step backwards for gaming. That controller can be used as a sort of gyro-mouse, and you can use it to aim with much greater accuracy in a shooter than you would with a regular controller. It will also make it much easier to play RTS games, which are notoriously hard to play with traditional controllers and usually resort to a brute force "select everything" method. Kinect, on the other hand... eh. Kinect might work for an RTS if the developer is clever, but it couldn't possibly work for a shooter. I mean, what, this gesture is for shooting? That gesture is for jumping? Lean forward to run? Yeah, right.
On the other hand, Move may be less likely to work for the gimmick crowd, and that may give Kinect the edge... well, until the "casual" audience sees some other shiny object.
On the other hand, Move may be less likely to work for the gimmick crowd, and that may give Kinect the edge... well, until the "casual" audience sees some other shiny object.
While I think that both Kinect and Move will not sell as well as Microsoft and Sony would want to,I don't think of them as a fail,including 3D.Sure,we're still far far away from the Matrix/Avatar kind of imersive gaming,but the way I see this,those gimmicks are a step towards evolution.Just look at how the controller itself evolved from the Atari era to nowadays modern controllers.
Maybe Kinect and Move (and the Wii)are not the right step towards this evolution.If that's the case,at least in the future people will avoid this kind of thing and (hopefully) create something better = more immersive/intuitive.Although I really have a hard time thinking how could someone inprove what's already fine.
Maybe Kinect and Move (and the Wii)are not the right step towards this evolution.If that's the case,at least in the future people will avoid this kind of thing and (hopefully) create something better = more immersive/intuitive.Although I really have a hard time thinking how could someone inprove what's already fine.
Like what you're saying Yahtzee. But what about Kinect being able to read facial expressions and stuff. I mean for RPGs that could really, really add to the who roleplaying thing... if it works...
I think that there's a lot of potential for some amazing things to done with the technology if any game developers really try to do something innovative with it... Which most all of them won't I guess.
It's too late to try and market the 360 or the PS3 as a casual gamers device. Nobody's gonna see them that way and the casual gamer's still gonna go for the Wii I think.
I think that there's a lot of potential for some amazing things to done with the technology if any game developers really try to do something innovative with it... Which most all of them won't I guess.
It's too late to try and market the 360 or the PS3 as a casual gamers device. Nobody's gonna see them that way and the casual gamer's still gonna go for the Wii I think.