MaxwellGT2000 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
SleepWaking said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
The problem with the hater part you described is that it seems they aren't really liking Nintendo games, or third party games on Nintendo systems, for what they are, but the gimmicks. If that is what it takes to impress them, THEY are the fake gamers.
|
Mostly these guys just hate Nintendo because they want to hate Nintendo not because they dont enjoy their games. So if Nintendo can get these people to get interested they must do something really well. btw go moan somewhere else, it´s not a gimmick.
|
Yeah 3D in games is about as much of a gimmick as motion controls, since one of the biggest problems with games is that you can't judge depth as well since the images don't allow for that. Racing games, flying sims, and 3D platformers this holds especially true.
And yes these people from my story are the gamers that really didn't give Wii the time of day, but the 3DS had such a great wow factor that it even impressed them.
|
Motion controls were a gimmick with the power glove, not the Wii. Just because a bunch of people thought it was doesn't mean the mainstream that embraced the system thought it was. It actually changed how you played, not merely how it looked.
And 3D doesn't actually add depth perception. I hoped it would, but the way it works is forcing the eyes to work in a way counter to depth perception. Forcing the eyes on a single focus means depth can only seem to be in a few spots at once.
Furthermore, motion controls were backed up by good games that wouldn't have worked as well without them. Those genres you mentioned work in regular 2D screens.
|
@Bolded
That's the prime words to disprove your own argument, yes racers, platformers, and flying sims work in 2D but 3D does add to them and work better as a result.
Also I'm wondering if you've used 3D in games, I can focus my eyes on an object in Pilotwings and get the sense of depth since anything in front of said object looks like it would in real life, giving you depth of field, which is what you need in 3D games to judge distance properly.
|
No, adding something is not the same as not working as well.
|
Wait so motion controls weren't added? Even though the sports genre already existed? You're simply putting different terms you could use for BOTH except one term has a positive look the other is negative, funny how that works out isn't it? Sports games were around and thriving before motion controls, they were added and it made the experience more fun and enjoyable. Racing games have been around since the Atari days but adding 3D makes it more fun and enjoyable.
You're simply stating the same thing in a different way that seems negative the presidental debate on Futurama sums this up pretty well "your 3 cent tax increase goes too far!" "Your 3 cent tax increase doesn't go too far enough!"
http://videosift.com/video/Futurama-Presidential-Debate
|
My sentence did not imply that. "not the same" does not mean "therefore this thing didn't happen at all". As your reply is based on grossly misreading my statment, it's invalid.
I'll clarify. Turn off the slider, and Pilotwings still works. And "anything in front of said object looks like it would in real life" still means you just focus on a couple things. Also your wording implies photo realism, and I hope you didn't mean that. Even the best games don't actually do that.
Wii Sports is a way to simulate sports for people that don't play sports. The pick-up-and-play aspect would still be there with buttons, but the simulation would be lost. BTW, that also applies to playing a racing game with a wheel versus a controller. The latter just requires a dedicate peripheral, but it does turn a sim game up a level.
