Khuutra on 04 June 2009
| ironman said: You fail to see the technological advancement here. Ubisoft's exercise game is just an eyetoy with better implimetation (meaning 2D no Z plane). One can only look at technology in a linear way. Technology advances, it does so in many directions, but they are all forward leaning. Wii has motion control (Wiimote, Ubisofts "eye"), so does Sony(Eyetoy), and now MS(NATAL). They are all motion control, the methods they went about it is different. you need a remote/balance board/wheel for the Wii to have motion control. you need a remote with a "glowing orb" on top to tell the Eyetoy where it's Z is. Natal, well, you don't need any of that. They stripped away the need for that technology, thus rendering the NATAL project more advanced. Anything that strips away the need for older technology is advanced. Look at the freight train industry, the used fire to create steam which pushed pistons, which made the train move. Then, somebody invented the Diesel engine, which uses fire, and pistons, and makes the train move. i ask you, which one is more advanced? |
You cannot be serious.
What you are saying is that non-parallel technology progression can necessarily be compared in terms of linear logic, which is fallacious. You cannot be more wrong than you are being right now. Not all technology is "forward leaning", whatever that means.
The technology used in Natal and the technology used in the Wiimote are not comparable in that way. They are just different. One is not inherently more "advanced" than the other.
What you are describing is not "stripping away the need for" technology, it is finding an alternative method by which to produce the same results.
