Explain to me how PS3 and Wii had better E3 than 360

[Michael-5]

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Michael-5 said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Michael-5 said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

 

Kinect Fable isnt the same as the fable franchise (which fell way down hill after two). Three was good but not great and nowhere near what Molyneux made it out to be. Molyneux is so desperate to prove how great the Kinect is as is going to put the final nail in his own games coffin by betting there is a core crowd for it. The core with a kinect will probably buy it from name value, but it isn't core. You do know the major thing that seperates casual titles from the core right? I bet you know what that big answer is! Don't hide it! lol

Peter Molyneux always over-hypes his games, and he never meets expectations.

Kinect games can be core, I already showed you. That very link you posed which defined casual games, does not label Fable: The Journey a casual game. It is not being developed for families or for a broad audience, it is being developed for Fable RPG fans.

It's core, weather you like it or not. You swung, and missed, now get over it.

360 had a better press conference then PS3 did this E3, but not by much. In the end, they were all bad. The only AAA title announced was Halo 4, that alone gives 360 the best conference. What really good game did Sony announce? Dust 514, yea I bet you have never played Eve Online, Console MMO's don't work. Starhawk? Yea a sequel to an 8/10 game pssh. Or Sly Cooper, no bigger game then any of the Kinect titles MS talked about.

lol you dont get it do you? Without a controller anyone can play the game. They've broken the wall between the casuals and core, thus making the game casual yet open for all to enjoy. An RPG without the complexities of the way we game with a controller is exactly what casuals need to see what we see in gaming. In essence, if the game isnt a rail title, then you can definitely not only(much like other kinect titles) ride the movies, but actually be in the movie. Lets see how this goes.

Why does not having a controller do that? What's so different between making a hand command then pressing a button?

If I can play a hardcore FPS such as ghost recon without a controller, isn't it possible to make an RPG with deep controls? Like I said earlier, Fable was always a simple game, by replacing A with actually jumping, and XYB buttons with hand commands, and the analog stick with leaning, we aren't exactly dumbing down the game. We could in fact remove sub menus for magic, and the emotion wheel with hand gestures, giving more commands possible then with a conventional controller.

This may help casual gamers jump into Fable, but by no means does it make Fable a casual game.

Take oniyide's analogy to Resident Evil. The on rails Resident Evil games, although more accessable to casual gamers, are still core titles. Fable is in a similar boat now, although it isn't on rails and the controls will likely be more sophisticated, it still likely won't be of the same quality as a mainstream Resident Evil game.

So if anything, treat Fable: The Journey to be like ODST was to Halo. Still a great game, any Fable fan will accept, but not as good as the mainstream titles. Still, by all definitions you have provided, a core experience.

P.S. Isn't Sly Cooper the same idea? A "game casual yet open for all to enjoy." as you put Fable? Why ignore Fable, but count Sly Cooper as a core experience?

Anything on a controller is more complex, because its mind and muscle memory of fingers. Most gamers (casual) dont have the time or dont know how to game like we do. Sky Cooper is not the same idea. Think of Sly Cooper like you would Super Mario or Crash bandicoot...platforming nostaglia for gamers but easy enough for casuals to learn without freaking out. Even still for a casual, instead of naturally testing every button, they would run to the instruction manual. most people do, but gamers usually do for more than basic reasoning because once weve graduated from one title we move on to the next. If it is within a popular genre we know the basics. (IE: If you have played infamous, Assassins Creed isnt far down your alley.) Kinect titles make it so the learning curve is extremely small, limiting you only to the movement of your body, instead of having to memorize complex controls. Even the Fable titles would even the newest casual 15 minutes to learn at the shortest. With Kinect titles, all you have to do is step in the game. There is no barrier. If you cannot win in dance central, then really all it means is you suck at dancing. If Kinect was used to the full potential we all grew up thinking about games of its ilk, alternate reality titles are not far off in the future. As I said Stop thinking about controllers or core when you think kinect, you are the controller. This is what makes it different and special.

P.S.
Check Gamespot to see if they still have the learning curve box. You'll see what I mean when you see it. It basically tells you how fast the average gamer would take to learn a title in case you are interested in a title you've never played before. I havent checked it out in a couple of years.

Controller free gaming is a new concept, how can you already pass off any core Kinect title, without playing any? Common, you're being silly now, Ryse will be the first core Kinect title, lets just wait and see how gamers react to it, and see the limitations of Kinect. Let's see how responsive the system is to subtle commands, maybe you will be surprised to see these games are actually deeper then you imagined.

Ghost Recon is playable hands free, so it's obvious hands-free gaming can work with core games. With the recognition of finger commands, Ryse could be one really fun game from Crytek.

Also Steel Battallion for XB required a $150 controller to play with over 30 buttons. The sequel is a Kinect title. If Kinect was so easy to learn, how the heck are they going to implement such advanced controls?

Who the heck said all Kinect titles will have a short learning curve? I had much much more trouble learning Dance Central 2 then I did Valkeria Chronicles. Both games were new genres to me, but Dance Central was really hard, and that's a casual game. You're learning curve arguement is very biased. You assume core Kinect titles will have short learning curves, despite being completly different genres then what core gamers are used to. It will be easier for a core gamer to pick up a controller and play Ghost Recon, then use the Kinect controller, thus the learning curve is actually steeper.

You're whole arguement is bs. Kinect is capable of very sophisticated and advanced control schemes. You pass it off as a gimmick, but I really doubt you ever played with the hardware before. Some of the most control heavy games are becoming Kinect titles, and if the camera were incapable of picking up subtle hand gestures, I doubt that would be happening.

I'm just done debating with you. You have a pre-conceived notion about Kinect, and won't let it go. According to you, no Kinect title can be a core game, because the learning curves are too small. However there isn't a single core Kinect game out, so how you assume that, makes no sense to me. You want to ignore Kinect games as core titles, fine, but seriously just because you are not interested in the exclusive core games for a system, doesn't mean they aren't there. I don't ignore Sly, you shouldn't ignore Fable, simple as that. Not everyone shares your view on gaming, and you should learn to accept that.

P.S. No learning curve box on gamespot, but in newer reviews they give a list of pros and cons, and being overly difficult or easy is listed as a con in some games, like Demon's Souls. Regardless, if you consider Fable casual, I think Sly Cooper falls in the same boat. You give Sly far too much credit, it's a very simple game too.