bardicverse said:
I can see your logic from a "now" perspective. I'm sure even Nintendo fans were groaning about the Wii Remote when it was first announced, not seeing how Mario could possibly be improved with motion controls. It's always hard to see the future, even Bill Gates suggested that no one would need more than 640 KB of memory, now we have games that take up gigabytes. I'm not entirely disagreeing or throwing out your point, you could be right, and from a "now" perspective, I agree. After all, how will you run in Halo with Natal, or how will you crawl through a sewer in Assasin's Creed? Until it can be shown how is used, it's hard to comprehend. That said, it seems more like MS and Sony want to push things to be intensively motion control based, to keep up with Nintendo. Until they committ to it, they won't have the appeal to the casuals, as not all games would use the motion controls. Casual gamers want instant compatibility, they're not going to want to research if a game works with their control system or not. |
I get you..and I understand what MS and Sony are trying, but untuitively making someone duck in a game with only motion controls means: actually ducking and crouching..and for jumps: actually jumping and this is where I think we need to look at the value, again:
this is alreayd good enough, they are going to overshoot the customers..again...VR never really took off, but the Wii did
yet MS and Sony are trying really hard to do VR NOW wich begs the question: do consumers feel the necessity?
I would not enjoy a platformer if I had to jump myself every 5 seconds, but do enjoy playing a boarding game with balance
I think that this is where the real question lies.... does the consumer WANT controls for traditional games that are completely and radically different? not per se..imo
swinging the wii remote is cool for tennis..but if they incorporated the balance board for character control..I wouldn't enjoy it
