On Kinect and PlayStation Move

[JPH330]

Wow. TWO people that completely misunderstood the point.

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.

...No, because in the real world, you're actually having to learn to control your body movements. In thought control all you'd be doing is thinking of what your character should be doing. That's like the epitome of lazy, casual, moron gaming. 'Hey, I should shoot that guy WHOO I DID IT!"

How could any sort of skill be tested when all you're doing is thinking, unless you're playing a game like Sudoku or something like that? Neither real gun shooting skill nor current gaming gun shooting skill are primarily based on thinking, they're mainly based on reflexes and the ability to keep a steady aim. Steady aim doesn't have anything to do with the thought process involved.

 

[Railgun88]

I agree. I have a wii that has been collecting dust for the past two years since about one or two months after I bought it. And yes, I was excesivley disappointed by it. What Yahtzee says about an idea like the matrix, I would more than gladly help anyone who plans on making something that epic. I for one just hope the 360 or PS3 don't end up losing so much money from this idea, even though I like PC gaming more I still like and respect them.

 

[ImpostorZim]

I guess we'll just have to wait it out. Wait until this whole 3D and Motion Control gimmick craze blows over. Maybe somebody will go bankrupt and they'll start spending their money on something more productive like what Yahtzee was talking about. YEAAAAH! I'd take the red pill anyday.

 

[lacktheknack]

Less bile, more logic. You are getting good Yahtzee. Really good.
Also where are the Metro 2033 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. : Call of Pripyat reviews?

It depends when Australia gets them.

 

[underscore_b]

Wow. TWO people that completely misunderstood the point.

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.

...No, because in the real world, you're actually having to learn to control your body movements. In thought control all you'd be doing is thinking of what your character should be doing. That's like the epitome of lazy, casual, moron gaming. 'Hey, I should shoot that guy WHOO I DID IT!"

How could any sort of skill be tested when all you're doing is thinking, unless you're playing a game like Sudoku or something like that? Neither real gun shooting skill nor current gaming gun shooting skill are primarily based on thinking, they're mainly based on reflexes and the ability to keep a steady aim. Steady aim doesn't have anything to do with the thought process involved.

I'm not looking to start a flamewar but it sounds like you really don't understand how the nervous system works.

 

[JPH330]

Wow. TWO people that completely misunderstood the point.

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.

...No, because in the real world, you're actually having to learn to control your body movements. In thought control all you'd be doing is thinking of what your character should be doing. That's like the epitome of lazy, casual, moron gaming. 'Hey, I should shoot that guy WHOO I DID IT!"

How could any sort of skill be tested when all you're doing is thinking, unless you're playing a game like Sudoku or something like that? Neither real gun shooting skill nor current gaming gun shooting skill are primarily based on thinking, they're mainly based on reflexes and the ability to keep a steady aim. Steady aim doesn't have anything to do with the thought process involved.

I'm not looking to start a flamewar but it sounds like you really don't understand how the nervous system works.

Okay, after re-reading Yahtzee's article, yeah, wow, I pretty much completely misinterpreted what he was saying.

But frankly, if you're talking about a sort of Matrix-style virtual reality, I think that's even worse than Kinect, because if your nerves are receiving the same sort of impulses that you'd receive if you were actually doing whatever activity is being simulated in the game, then why not just do that activity in real life?! Admittedly you wouldn't have to worry about actually getting shot or whatever and risk being injured in the real world, but other than that, it would basically be the same as doing the real activity except you wouldn't get the workout.

 

[RandV80]

I really don't get it, am I the only one that can look past the over exagerated arm flailing thing and see the increased depth of control the wii-mote/nunchuk setup provides?

Lets go back to the start of Nintendo with the NES. With a NES controller Star Fox wouldn't work, with a SNES controller you couldn't play Golden Eye, and an N64 controller wouldn't cut it anymore for a fast paced online multiplayer FPS. As far as I'm concerned there's only so much you can do with two thumbs on on an XY analogue stick (and as an earlier gamer I hated using the right thumb on the buttons, fingers worked way better), which takes a lot of time to become almost as intuitive as a mouse. While you can't really say it's been fully realized this is why I've always like The Wii's approach, increase intuitiveness of the directional controls while also upgrading it from XY XY input to XYZ XY XYZ. I'm not sure how many games you have to play until using a PS3 or 360 controller for a FPS feels as natural as a keyboard & mouse, but when you compare say firing a bow in Shadow of the Colossus vs Twilight Princess, aiming & firing a weapon in Resident Evil 4, or painting in Okami, it all works so much more naturally on the Wii.

It's more a personal thing but I also don't get the hate on using the wii-mote & nunchuk in a non flailing game compared to the classic or traditional controller. Unlike how Nintendo advertises I find it increases the vegetative state as you don't have to have your hands glued togethe on a controller in front of you, but rather can laze around however you want. There's some limit on the Wii since the two controllers are attached by a cord, but that's not going to be a problem with the PS Move!

 

[kewne]

Wow. TWO people that completely misunderstood the point.

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.

...No, because in the real world, you're actually having to learn to control your body movements. In thought control all you'd be doing is thinking of what your character should be doing. That's like the epitome of lazy, casual, moron gaming. 'Hey, I should shoot that guy WHOO I DID IT!"

How could any sort of skill be tested when all you're doing is thinking, unless you're playing a game like Sudoku or something like that? Neither real gun shooting skill nor current gaming gun shooting skill are primarily based on thinking, they're mainly based on reflexes and the ability to keep a steady aim. Steady aim doesn't have anything to do with the thought process involved.

I'm not looking to start a flamewar but it sounds like you really don't understand how the nervous system works.

Okay, after re-reading Yahtzee's article, yeah, wow, I pretty much completely misinterpreted what he was saying.

But frankly, if you're talking about a sort of Matrix-style virtual reality, I think that's even worse than Kinect, because if your nerves are receiving the same sort of impulses that you'd receive if you were actually doing whatever activity is being simulated in the game, then why not just do that activity in real life?! Admittedly you wouldn't have to worry about actually getting shot or whatever and risk being injured in the real world, but other than that, it would basically be the same as doing the real activity except you wouldn't get the workout.

But then I wouldn't need to schedule a soccer game with my friends if I wanted to play, or at least we could all play together even if there was a storm outside.
It would be like using a cellphone instead of a regular phone. Everything you can do with a regular phone is feasible on a cellphone, but the cellphone is just that more practical.

Still a long way to go though until computers can reliably read brain signals. At least for doing anything other than playing Pong. Or Frogger.

 

[captain underpants]

But frankly, if you're talking about a sort of Matrix-style virtual reality, I think that's even worse than Kinect, because if your nerves are receiving the same sort of impulses that you'd receive if you were actually doing whatever activity is being simulated in the game, then why not just do that activity in real life?! Admittedly you wouldn't have to worry about actually getting shot or whatever and risk being injured in the real world, but other than that, it would basically be the same as doing the real activity except you wouldn't get the workout.

Um, because you can create whatever reality you want, access it whenever you want, and do things you'd never be able to do in real life. You know, much like we do now with games, except with much higher fidelity.

 

[SovietX]

This is what I keep telling my friends. Its a stupid gimmick that drags people in for the whole "easy to pick up and play!" or "bring your family together". Regular systems do that themselves. You dont need to have to flail around in front of a tv like a tosspot to have fun. Im not sure if its because ive been playing games since I was 4 but 'easy to pick up and play'? I have no trouble adapting whatsoever.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

You've got the point, I agree completely.

 

[Zackary Yakumo]

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

The new robot thing? How could anyone possibly think that thing is Yahtzee.

No, how could it be anything like yahtzee. but i think it vbe better it was.

:wheatly (yahtzee version): Hey you..... yeah, you, the human prick. get ready to catch me.......... oh wait a new wii game came out..... oh great."

 

[rustedge]

Games are meant to be gimmicky. They're built around capturing your attention at least long enough for one to buy it, to feed the parties involved with its production and sale. Immersion is just a bonus that everyone feels entitled to. To use an allegory: food works the same way; one can sustain oneself on food that doesn't taste good, but once one tastes more enticing food, one expects more out of all future foods. Everyone was content when 8-bit games were on the market, just as everyone was content pumping quarters into arcade machines for hours or days.

Entertainment has always been a contest as to what can hold one's attention; this results in a battle to see who can produce the nicest gimmick, game or service. This means that when one company does something that is the slightest bit profitable, all companies in the field will do the same; CDs supplanted cartridges, DVDs CDs, Blurays are apparently next. People are attracted to the shiniest object, and the Wii outsold both PS3 and 360. Motion control was naturally the next step. No one cares about innovation; they all want money.

I agree with Yahtzee's perception of current motion control technology and stereoscopic 3d are more gimmick than utility. But like what you said, gimmicks sell. The challenge is, how fast can they get the technology to mature before the novelty wears off? Much like movies, if explosions are starting to desensitize moviegoers, you're pretty much stuck with two options: find a new gimmick, like bigger explosions in 3d, or get to the essence of making films, which is conveying a proper story.

It's the same with other technology. Touch screens were a huge hype years ago, and they've been used on kiosks all over. But using them as a standard interface for computers hadn't caught on simply because it wasn't hitting the right marks. Only when it was applied to portable devices was its potential fully realized.

As for stereoscopic 3d, I see it as something analogous to stereoscopic audio. A different perspective for each eye gives you depth perception, but if you look at the screen from a different vantage point, things would look really messed up. It only works if you're sitting at the right spot. Until we get to the point where each view is rendered depending on where you are relative to the screen, it would remain a gimmick. (So yeah, maturity of 3d displays would eventually move to holographic projections and such.)

As for the annoying debate on immersion, I would side with Yahtzee with this. While it is true that 1:1 motion control would provide better stimuli, it's more of a question of how long you can sustain that immersion. For games that you'd play for 10 minutes at a time, it should be perfectly fine. Unfortunately, most games are played for hours per sitting. You wouldn't play action games to get your ass handed to you just because you're out of breath in real life. You'd rather see your avatar beat the shit out of everyone non-stop, aye? For games meant for gamer hobbyists, I see motion control being relegated to secondary input, like shrugging off enemies, breaking down doors, entering rage mode once you start throwing the controller around the room, etc.

In summary, motion control is more immersive to the point where you're too tired to play. Once you get there, you'd be more willing to suspend belief using a normal controller. So in time, we'll see that some games benefit from motion control(like on-rails shooters and arcade sims) and some games are still best played with the standard controller setup (like action-platformers and RPGs).

 

[ldwater]

As usual you are completely right - motion controls as they stand in this dumbed down form will only work for 'simple' games - this means their only appeal will be for casual gamers.

As infuriating as it is that the games industry seems to be sticking its middle finger up at its 'core' customers I'm sure that anyone else would have done the same in terms of running a business.

At the end of the day to get more money you need more customers, and not everyone is going to want to sit with a controller and gun their way through gears of war or something like that. While we (the core gamers) call it a 'gimmic' the rest of the industry call it 'accessability' - meaning that little children, non-gamer adults, and old people (who are all easily impressed) are more likely to go for something that is more accessable and provide 'simple fun' rather than providing a specific gaming experiance.

And at the end of the day £50 from a child, grandmother or non-gamer is still the same £50 as from a 'core' gamer, regardless of how much its ACTUALLY used (ie a core gamer will play it to death where as a casual gamer would play it once or twice a month - still cost the same either way) and while we laugh at how stupid the whole thing looks I think we also need to remember the key thing: This is NOT ment for us.

Also on a side point about 'Thought -> Action' in games, you are right that adding distance or complexity to the situation will only make things LESS immersive I would have to say in some situations it would probably be more 'authentic' - think about the solider in a battle - they see an enemy and they think "Shoot" but they still have to bring the rifle up, align the sight and pull the trigger where as us gamers just press a button.

 

[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?