On Kinect and PlayStation Move

[Something Amyss]

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.

I'll just add: I'm not sure I want immersion.

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.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Bunni]

You doing the voice of Wheatley? Mindgasm.

 

[jamesworkshop]

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.

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

 

[I Max95]

so true
why does no one realize that nintendo got it wrong!

 

[TheScarecrow]

Here I thought the theories and opinions I formed about motion control and 3D gaming were unique.

Fuck that.

 

[Timbydude]

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.

 

[MikeTheElf]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

 

[Thunderhorse31]

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.

 

[theklng]

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 beg to differ.

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.'

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.

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.

 

[foxtrot3100]

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

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

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

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.

There are probably other directions immersion could go as well, although i can't really think of what those might be.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

if anything. i'm actually afraid to be excited for portal 2. trying to make sequals to games that were concidered perfect don't usually come out to well.

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.

 

[poetcop]

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.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

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.

 

[Pebkio]

Foxtrot: Neither will exist in our lifetime. Just... not going to happen, be sad. However, there will be advancements in our lifetimes, and those advancements might kill off one way or another.

For instance, reading brain-waves is getting to be more exact as the years go by... and one day... they'll find a cheap way to connect leads to a bunch of different spots on our heads and have an avatar respond.

We, as a species, will be very bad at playing games this way... at least at first. To top that off, the cheap versions they use won't be as precise as needed and the games will probably be very gimicky. Worse yet: There won't be any force feedback... except maybe we'll get chairs that react to video games. It will be complete shit and I'll support it all the way.

Meanwhile, they'll have invented a suit that is suspended in mid-air and translates your movements into the movements of your avatar, and it'll be good and I'll still hate the damn thing.

 

[MikeTheElf]

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 beg to differ.

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.'

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.

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.

No, I'm saying that the human race is attracted to shiny objects. I didn't say more people would play games that look nicer; I said more people would be attracted to purchase games that look nicer. Of course people are also going to look into gameplay mechanics, but even then: novelty sells. The newer the stimulus, the more attracted to it humans will be. THAT is why gimmicks sell in the first place. If they look cool, people want them.

You obviously think that everyone looks into the game studio or publisher of the game, or even cares to remember it. Let me list some demographics that more often than not don't pay attention:
1- Children of parents with expendable income - Spoilt children generally love to waste money on things that look shiny. If you were to tell me that these parents research the games they buy for their children, I'd call bs on you faster than you called on me.
2- Casual Gamers - These sort of gamers are into the gimmicky stuff. Whether or not the company has made bad games ultimately has no bearing on the gimmick-drawn crowd.
3- People with expendable incomes - Lots of people I know love having lots of games. Some people don't trust what the read or hear in internet reviews and want to try games out for themselves, or maybe they want to give companies more than one chance at making a good game.
4- Magpies - As stated numerous times: people are drawn to new and shiny things. If it looks good, some people will look into it, others will just buy it (see 'people with expendable incomes')

Lastly, you appear to forget that opinions are subjective. Games are not factually considered 'good' or 'bad'; the verdict is up to the gamer. There are billions of people in the world; it would be talking out of your ass to say that there isn't a market for everything.

 

[10thDegree]

You don't judge portal on early information, yet you judge everything else?
Hypocrit

 

[That-Ginger-Kid]

either way you put it, portal is going to be amazing

 

[theriddlen]

I agree with Yahtzee - controllers that utilize the break-ur-tv-with-pad mechanics suck! Also, today's 3D is fail. Even after watching a 3D movie in cinema eyes tend to pain. And in games, that you play 8 hours a day? Eyesfallingoutofsockets-tastic!

 

[theklng]

No, I'm saying that the human race is attracted to shiny objects. I didn't say more people would play games that look nicer; I said more people would be attracted to purchase games that look nicer. Of course people are also going to look into gameplay mechanics, but even then: novelty sells. The newer the stimulus, the more attracted to it humans will be. THAT is why gimmicks sell in the first place. If they look cool, people want them.

You obviously think that everyone looks into the game studio or publisher of the game, or even cares to remember it. Let me list some demographics that more often than not don't pay attention:
1- Children of parents with expendable income - Spoilt children generally love to waste money on things that look shiny. If you were to tell me that these parents research the games they buy for their children, I'd call bs on you faster than you called on me.
2- Casual Gamers - These sort of gamers are into the gimmicky stuff. Whether or not the company has made bad games ultimately has no bearing on the gimmick-drawn crowd.
3- People with expendable incomes - Lots of people I know love having lots of games. Some people don't trust what the read or hear in internet reviews and want to try games out for themselves, or maybe they want to give companies more than one chance at making a good game.
4- Magpies - As stated numerous times: people are drawn to new and shiny things. If it looks good, some people will look into it, others will just buy it (see 'people with expendable incomes')

Lastly, you appear to forget that opinions are subjective. Games are not factually considered 'good' or 'bad'; the verdict is up to the gamer. There are billions of people in the world; it would be talking out of your ass to say that there isn't a market for everything.

i actually had a post ready about this, but i decided not to post it because of lack of worthwhile content.

let me instead counter your points one by one:

1) as awareness on games is increasing, and they are becoming an increasingly larger part of our culture, parents are actually doing this. i remember working at a game retailer several years ago, where i would see parents with their children every day. it really struck me how much more most of them cared than i anticipated (i had pretty much the stereotype of what you described in my head when i started). of course, back then there were much less emphasis on physical motion than there is now, but really, it's just hopping from one trend to another.

i will say that the interest is still fairly limited, and we probably won't see any parents in this generation care excessively about what their child plays; but i'll wager that when the coming generations will become parents, they will have a much stronger opinion on games. not just as legal guardians, but as players themselves.

2) casual gamers are per definition people who want to have a casual atmosphere around a game. this includes events such as party gaming, and these people generally aim more at creating a social atmosphere than actually playing any game. since the game isn't in focus, it can by them be substituted by anything else. they only care about the game as far as it can actually provide worthwhile multiplayer entertainment. gimmicks have no place here, since gimmicks provide no worthwhile entertainment.

as an addendum, you should consider your prejudice about people and what they are into, especially considering there is no logic in your statement about casual gamers.

3) as a games developer, i consider game 'research' to be much needed; which is why i sometimes force myself to play games in order to look for what hooks people in said games. i have a budget every couple of months for which i can buy any game, whether hyped or out of interest. i have a large collection of games; with some i've played through numerous times and some i've never touched. i usually check around on a few review sites before checking a game out, if a demo isn't out. i know several people (colleagues and friends) who are in the same situation. i would never buy a game because of its gimmick, and i don't think the people i know would either.

it boggles my mind how you stereotype a person with interest in games to label him completely ignorant of said games. it's like expecting a person with a personal library of books to be ignorant in literature. it really hurts your credibility when you speak of these people you know that obviously have an interest in games that you neglect to mention.

4) not really an argument since magpies aren't humans.

lastly, i do not forget anything. opinions are subjective, yes. opinions masquerading as facts are too. you substitute your own stereotype definition for seemingly the entire demographic of players instead of looking at things as how they are. i used to see things my way too, but then i grew up and realized that even though you see stupid people on tv and on the internet, it doesn't mean that every single person is equally stupid. take my advice and get out somewhere and meet with people, or even just sit on a bench and look at them. i can assure you you'll be positively surprised.

as a final note: yes, everyone likes different tastes, yadda yadda subjectivity. this is true, but you don't market a product on a business model that say, "everyone likes everything".