Practical application: Would it work?

[viranimus]

Ok, got to thinking. As much hate as motion controls generate, Im sure there must be a legitimate way to turn it into a viable technology that can actually improve gameplay experience. So I was thinking, what if you had a game where it incorps motion control with a simple headband sensor, which is mapped to your look mechanism. ( Edit: might give controls to consoles akin to mouse control) You still do everything with the controller you typically would but instead of using an inefficient analog stick to look up down left or right, you simply move your head a little bit to achieve the same effect. Im not sure it would work, so I would like to see what others would think of the idea, to basically see the negatives of which Im not seeing yet on why it wouldnt. But I think if done properly it might be able to actually increase immersion into a game, instead of being so counter intuitive.

While were at it, Any other ideas on good and practical uses for motion controls?

 

[Applejack]

In regards to looking around I think Kinect has headtracking and does just what you suggested.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

That idea wouldn't work. As you look left to turn the camera you turn away from the TV... no practicality there. Basically there is little practicality with motion controls. The analog controller will always have it's advantage of it and the mouse will always have it's crown of all.

 

[Pearwood]

No matter how much hate they generate it doesn't really change the fact that the hate is totally groundless, they don't ruin gaming like people keep saying. I don't see how pressing buttons is more immersive than arm movements, plus not all games need immersion in the first place.

 

[viranimus]

No matter how much hate they generate it doesn't really change the fact that the hate is totally groundless, they don't ruin gaming like people keep saying. I don't see how pressing buttons is more immersive than arm movements, plus not all games need immersion in the first place.

I dont think its less immersive, as much as it is an emerging technology that has a way to go and does suffer from some unresponsiveness (look at the asian models demo kinect badly thread & video) which unresponsive controls = lack of immersion in my book.

I have tried using Wii controls, and I guess ill just have to wait to see how kinect & move work, but I really dont see alot of immersion in flailing ones arms to play a game. It might be a step in the right direction, but only a baby step.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

they don't ruin gaming like people keep saying

Nor are they exactly applicable to the games the majority of complainers prefer to play.

I don't see how pressing buttons is more immersive than arm movements

Muscle memory. The small twitches and movements for button presses and control have been ingrained into our play styles that most gamers hardly notice. Thus we don't have to think about the action. Arguably the same can apply to wide sweeping motions, but those also require a large open area to play in otherwise you get sidetracked trying not to hit anything.

 

[Pearwood]

I dont think its less immersive, as much as it is an emerging technology that has a way to go and does suffer from some unresponsiveness (look at the asian models demo kinect badly thread & video) which unresponsive controls = lack of immersion in my book.

I have tried using Wii controls, and I guess ill just have to wait to see how kinect & move work, but I really dont see alot of immersion in flailing ones arms to play a game. It might be a step in the right direction, but only a baby step.

Oh yeah it's totally an emerging technology and has all the teething problems you'd expect but from how people speak about them you'd think that it has no merit at all and is single handedly killing gaming. It's getting slightly ridiculous how people just write it off.

 

[Infinatex]

No matter how much hate they generate it doesn't really change the fact that the hate is totally groundless, they don't ruin gaming like people keep saying. I don't see how pressing buttons is more immersive than arm movements, plus not all games need immersion in the first place.

The whole point of any entertainment medium is immersion. You read a book or see a film to lose yourself in the story and the same goes for gaming. Pressing buttons in its self is not immersive... But it's also not intrusive to the experience. You play the game with minimal movement, just two sticks and a few well placed buttons. You use these with out thinking, so your experience is uninhibited. Motion controls completely change this. Massive arm movements (used to perform task that usually take a quick button press) take away from the experience and interfere with you immersion. I play games to be immersed, and waving my arms around does not achieve this.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

That idea wouldn't work. As you look left to turn the camera you turn away from the TV... no practicality there. Basically there is little practicality with motion controls. The analog controller will always have it's advantage of it and the mouse will always have it's crown of all.

Not necessarily.
Put it in an helmet.

It would be the ultimate immersion before cybernetic implants and an very destructive way by punching stuffs down.

Yeah but think about it. You're stood there in your living room with a helmet on turning around to look a little to the left maybe running on the spot to move around. Face it, you'd look like a douche.

It wouldn't be immersive at all either. It's the mind that gets immersed into the game, not the body. Sitting on the sofa, watching the ending to Mass Effect I couldn't take my eyes off the screen and got goose bumps. That game was immersive and had absolutely no motion control technology.

It's a pointless technology on the immersion front, it's only good for casual gaming at the minute and I don't see it becoming anything else.

 

[viranimus]

Well, I could envision with a system such as kinect where its doing image mapping being advanced and more efficient if you go the green screen route. Basically having kinect as the eye, and a sensor to track which would lend itself to more accuracy of motion and allow for the detection of more subtle motions.

I see the problem about looking away from the TV being a detriment, but at the same time when looking at a tv, I know I can nod yes and no without loosing focus on the television. My wife will attest to this So that might not be as big as a detractor as one might think.

Also I do agree with the notion of bringing back efforts toward VR style head mounts. If the nintendo 3DS is any indication, new lighter screens can in effect be used to achieve great results. I think that gaming hardware pushed developers away from First person perspective and into a prevalence of 3rd person perspective in order to counter the limitations of both the hardware, and lack of peripheral vision in 1st person perspective. One of the most enjoyable exp I had which was only for a short time, I got to run EQ2 on my computer at work, which was a tri monitor display. Now doing so I could see the potential for peripheral visual input being something quite astounding, but the problem was that the game was not constructed to comply with that, and it basically just took your same view optimized for one screen and bended it. Now, that's something I think would really boost immersion is being able to create both the illusion of 3dimensions, as well as having peripheral vision in a game, which the idea of a helmet could push the boundaries on, provided its light enough to not be cumbersome. In that type of a helm, Motion controls mapped to the look mech would be astounding.

Eh.. weve got a few more years, just call me impatient.

 

[Pearwood]

The whole point of any entertainment medium is immersion. You read a book or see a film to lose yourself in the story and the same goes for gaming. Pressing buttons in its self is not immersive... But it's also not intrusive to the experience. You play the game with minimal movement, just two sticks and a few well placed buttons. You use these with out thinking, so your experience is uninhibited. Motion controls completely change this. Massive arm movements (used to perform task that usually take a quick button press) take away from the experience and interfere with you immersion. I play games to be immersed, and waving my arms around does not achieve this.

I can understand people thinking that immersion is everything but really it's not, some elements that break immersion can also be the better parts of a game. An example would be the puzzles across the Silent Hill series, I can't think of anything less immersive than brutally difficult puzzles that force you to go and get a pen and paper and spend about 20-30 minutes working it out. And in the same way motion controls can give a good experience even if the immersion is dropped slightly, for example compare Wii Sports to any other similar non-motion controlled game.

Not that I'm saying sporting games are all motion controls can do, I'm saying that it might be easier to implement them well in a sporting game but so long as they are implemented well and in a suitable way they can enhance a game. Sixaxis in Infamous and Mirror's Edge are good examples too, even though comparing sixaxis to an actual motion controller is fucking stupid.

 

[viranimus]

Perhaps it's just me but I really love that scene and that type of technology.
VR could be all this if we only focused on that development more - and it would make the Mouse + Keyboard combination extinct (Just for dramatic effect, I'm sure they'd be onpar with each other more or less).

Sorry I couldnt help but to laugh my ass off at the concept of futuristic motion controlled internet in a world where people are still using faxes and modems

 

[Applejack]

Head tracking really wouldn't work. When you play a game you don't move your head to look around the TV, you move your eyes. Unless you have a gigantic TV, or you sit really close to it, moving your head would actually be detrimental to gameplay, because you would be seeing less of the screen when you move your head.

If it was possible to have a motion capture camera precise enough to catch eye movement, and then translate it to ingame motion, then you would really be on to something, but the head idea isn't particularly effective.

This idea is decent, but it's not great, you can do better.

The way Kinect uses headtracking is that it's very sensitive, just slightly moving your head moves the camera around. I don't remember the exact story but it was with a racing game I think and the reviewers (ign or gamesradar, someone like that) said it actually works really well. Now drinking something while playing the game might not work but I guess we'll find out.

 

[Ertol]

Not sure if headtracking would work, might be hard to really get the motion down so you turn, say only 30 degrees to the right instead of spinning around. It's the same problem with the motion controller when trying to play FPS games. It's really hard, at least for me, to actually get the whole turning and aiming thing down. Personally I think the Wii can be used for more of a party console. You play it with a lot of friends and laugh at each other. Maybe it's more entertaining to little kids, but just the thought of swinging my controller around in slashing movements when playing an RPG does not sounds like fun. I was to be able to sit back and enjoy my game with minimal movement.

I think the only real next step for technology will be some sort of Virtual Reality. That's about the only thing I can see happening that would really enhance my game experience.