The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
"Maybe the whole concept of motion control is flawed?"
Posts
Doesn't that kind of gimp anyone who doesn't buy a new xbox though? You won't have any games that really push the system using Natal because there's a massive userbase out there who would be getting framerate issues due to not having the better hardware.
And I prefer to think of it as a new way to play, not the new way to play. As much as I'm eager to try Red Steel 2, I still have a soft spot for New Super Mario Bros. Wii as well... even if I think shaking to pick up items/players might be pushing it just a little. ;P
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
Mario Party has had a practice mode as long as I've been playing, all the way back to Mario Party 2 on N64.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the motion controls. At all. Fine if you don't like that feature, but its a staple of the series and nothing more.
Anecdotal, but my crowd are all around 30, been playing with keyboards and pads since the mid 80s, and we've had no problems with contols on Mario Party 9.
I don't think the concept is flawed, I just don't think it's for everyone. See every discussion on this subject where someone will reference swinging the sword Zelda TP or spin jumping in Mario Galaxy. For me, both those actions require a small movement that requires miniscule effort, and I have no problem with that or some inkling that these actions will be so much better with a button press.
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.
I haven't followed either of the other two consoles' motion things. The sixaxis was mildly interesting a few times in Heavy Rain and I'm not against trying new things, but most of the time I just want to lay on my couch with a controller in hand. I avoid PC games that don't outright require KB/M (strategy, etc) for the same reasons.
EDIT: Something else I felt like adding here. I love physical activity. Playing sports, going to the gym, etc. My job is pretty physical. I feel kinda gross if I sit around all day without doing something... yet adding any of that to video games irritates me. Same goes for people I've seen exercising that somehow manage to read a book (like on a tread mill). I need my reading as quiet and inactive as possible.
That said, my parents needed a new living room set so they took advantage of that Jordan's Furniture deal that comes with a Wii and I'm pretty sure the Wii, which they considered selling before even opening at first, was the most valuable part of this deal. Some times I try to call them and they don't answer because they are playing the fucking Wii. It's partially vindication for all the times they told me I played video games too much as a kid. It's in my goddamn blood okay.
I'd rather think "Crap, I always get square and circle mixed up" than "Fuck you you stupid piece of shit game I pushed the fucking nunchuck forward where is my shield bash!?"
Bit.trip beat also works, it's a much simpler game, but it uses the motion control for just what it needs to, it's part of the game's design, not just added on afterwards.
The thing people never really appreciate is that this is probably the biggest challenge in game design in probably decades. Figuring out how to design a game that efficiently uses user motion isn't something we had thought about until the wii. Only a few games are going to do it well until it becomes more ingrained in people's heads, and we get more examples that we can point to and say 'this is how you do it!'.
Ya, the nunchuck sucks. But when it's something that sees a flick of the wrist easily (like the remote), I still think that shit is preferable to button presses for an occasional move. Like 'doing a trick' in Mario Kart. It's not a main thing you do in that game, so the input is relegated to 'flick your wrist'. And it's *way* easier to remember in the heat of a game than fussing with your d-pad or some shoulder buttons or the triangle button.
I guess I think there's a simplicity to it that I appreciate.
This is kind of what I'm getting at here. It used to be that the meat of gameplay was 'button event --> activate canned action' be it attack/reload/duck whatever. The Wii's control input system is TERRIBLE for this, but much much better for ongoing inputs. You could, for example, have an adventure game where the protagonist manipulated items with each hand in real time to solve puzzles instead of pressing 'a' and having a sliding block minigame or something. The reason this isn't happening, in my opinion, is twofold.
First, it's wierd and it's hard. It's a completely different from how games have been designed since their have been games, and implementing 'replacements' for the current game genres is problematic (see the conversation about 1-to-1 swordfighting to replace canned attack animations). These genres have evolved over decades and developers and designers are very familiar with them; many if not all of these genre staples would have to get tossed out to make contiuous input schemes possible, simply because there IS no input scheme you can do with your hands or even your whole body that really matches 'scale dragon midflight, then backflip off it's head and fire a missile between its eyes before revving up your jetpack', but it's pretty easy to string together events like this with a traditional input scheme.
Second, the consumers are also very familiar with these game arcehtypes, and have demonstrated that they by and large prefer to do things that have no real world analog like this. It's standard. I'd have a hard time thinking of a game that DIDN'T focus on impossible things like this outside of sports titles (FPS or some TPS games might be an exception here, but that's more a use of pointer than motion controls). The market needs to widen to people who would be interested or become interested in more subtle in-game actions before it makes any kind of sense to invest in creating or completely reinventing genres.
Okami.
The motion controls were perfect and god awful at the same time. Utilizing the wiimote for brush strokes was quick, organic and it made me feel like I was a part of the game in a way that I've never felt before.
the combat however .... flicking your wrist every time you wanted to dart forward got old very quickly.
It's the perfect example of how to implement motion control .... and how not to implement motion control.
That would never have happened with a button press.
i guess i just dont really know what kind of game requires continuous input all the time. or even most of the time. snowboarding games, i guess?
Until you had to get enemies off you, then it became "GODAMMIT WHY THE FUCK ISNT THIS WORKING I JUST WANT TO HIT A GODAMN BUTTON. BUTTONS ALWAYS WORK"
Heavy Rain is another example of bad motion, I don't really want to shake my controller to shake the orange juice carton.
Well, I didn't want to have to shake an orange juice carton anyway, but that's besides the point...
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
No, that's a perfect example of how to implement pointer control, and how not to implement motion control.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Christ, that was so disappointing. I absolutely loved the PS2 version, so it seemed like a 480p widescreen version would be a no brainer, right? Except the combat controls were fucking atrocious. I immediately sold the Wii version, and rebought the PS2 version.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of asking "what kind of game does this style of input make possible that wasn't before?" devs ask "What kind of game that we're familiar with can use motion control?". As long as designers refuse to go that additional step back in the design process, motion controlled games will continue to be sup-par.
The most obvious thing in the world to do with the Wiimote/chuck setup is to represent each of the players hands in game and focus on moving items and manipulating the entire world. But as far as I know, not one game has even tried to make this a major defining focus. Why not? Because it falls entirely outside the "what game that we've made before can we cram some motion control into?" framework. It introduces a host of problems - how do you make combat? Can you? Would anyone play a mood focused adventure with incredibly detailed manipulation but no in depth combo system involving superhuman capabilities? How do you make a system like this advance over the course of the game? How do the puzzles get harder? Is there any sense of progression when everything you can do with your hands is available the whole game? How do you represent the weight of things that are weightless to the player?
Why bother answering these difficult unfamiliar questions when you can just make a more traditional game with vastly more polish, which is easier to do and can actually produce reasonable sales estimates?
haha good point