freebs2 said: Yes I don't like the way gaming is going, thanks to elitist clowns who can only think of graphics, realism and FPS shit. Those who think a 2 year old game is outdated, who buy 3 identical FPS games at year, who prefer a game to watch rather than a game to play or a cool character to a good game, who think a game is mature because is violent. That's what is ruining gaming. There is not casual gaming and hardcore gaming, there are just games you may like to play and games that you don't. You do want games to use motion control beacuse you'll look like a douche. Hello! You're playing, you're not doing something useful to yourself or to others, you're playing just like little kids play, if you want to do something manly go study or go to work. I said it, free to ban me

Hence, I will always be a nintendo-sony gamer (future tense), even if they don't exist as a console company. While graphics and realism, might occur with one of those two. It still feels unique in the sea of indenticals. 

I just read this thread right after I created this thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=130012&page=1#2

Sometimes, I just don't know. I see this new technology and I think it's cool and that it's going to "Revolutionize the industry" but in the in, 9.5 times out of 10, it's just some gimmick that the industry higher ups try (and fail) to integrate into gaming.

I dont think that turned out that way for the WIi

who are these people bitching might i ask?? If anything from what i seen on this site its the Ninty fans that are going all freaky, the HD guys are either excited or just indifferent

But how do we find the 0.5 out of 10 where it does improve the experience if we don't search? If everyone was just using old controllers, we'd be stuck in a rut. Kinect, Move and everything else is an experiment in how we can improve our games. Some times you find good stuff, and other times you don't. But have to try to find the good stuff in the first place to find it.

really?  please tell me what turned you off so bad that it was intimidating.  All i saw was basically it could be the tv, or from the few games it acted as the menu.

so you would rather go through the menu on the tv screen using a standard controller by scrolling using the analog sticks and pushing x and o and so on versus a touch screenn to click through?

I can agree with you on that.  I even made the argument defending Microsoft's performance at E3 based on this.  But sometimes, it's just hard to see the improvement.  It's like adding flashing lights to monopoly or making a mechanized version of a classic board/card game.  Yeah, we sometimes get impressed by the bells and whistles but those flashy versions always end up being forgotten while the traditional version lives on.  I get disheartened sometimes.

Things like motion controls (when the tech was finally right), online play, and touch screen controls seemed like "obvious fits".  I think that's why they work so well.  Other things seem like "Forced fits".  If the company has to try so hard to sell something to us, maybe it's something that we don't want/need.  I don't know.  I'm just trying to figure things out, here.  Glad this discussion is taking place.

I'm a fairly old school gamer. I was just a kid when the Atari system was in its prime and its decline but over the years, I've seen a lot. From my point of view, gaming was, for the most part, a TV, a console, a controller. It was good. Well, since the very beginning, the cutting edge industry of gaming has been the testing ground for new technology. Well, with a few exceptions, most of the new innovations that come to gaming have been gimmicky, at best.

There was the Power Glove. A device that let gamers interact with the game buy punching in mid-air and moving individual fingers (it was "So bad!"). There were various "Light Guns". From the Konami Justifier to the Nintendo Zapper to the Sega Menacer. They let you shoot objects on screen while using a facsimile of a gun. There were lesser known items like the U-Force (you held your hand in front of two sensors, allowing you to control a game without actually holding a controller), the Turbo Touch 360 (replaced the d-pad with a touch screen), the Sega Activator (full body movement controls). Other devices that recieved limited support but added to immersion were the Power Pad, Dance Dance Revolution dance mats, Guitar Hero/Rock Band instruments, and the Tony Hawk RIDE board. I could go on and on and on and on about the various cameras, microphones, e-readers, etc. that came out over the years. But look where we are, today. One could argue that, for all of the advances in technology, we are basically where we were when gaming first started--a TV. A console. A controller.

And that's what bothers me about the state of gaming, today. The integration of online (which isn't a new thing but really caught on, during the last gen and this gen) and motion controls (loved by some, and hated by others) are about the only features that seem to have made a permanent impact on gaming. Well, since the Wii became a massive success based on the promise of a new experience, it seems like nobody wants to launch a console without a "Gimmick". But look at the Wii. I own/enjoyed the system but how many gamers and customers bought the console, grew tired of the gimmick, and then asked, "Now what?" Was the Wii the right way to go? Yeah, Sony and Microsoft went after their market with the Move and Kinect (respectively) but was it time? Which leads me to the whole point of this rant: Technology for the sake of technology.

Are things like the Dreamcast VMU, Kinect, Move, the Wii Remote, the 3DS's 3D screen, the Wii U's controller, the SIXAXIS motion control, the PS Vita's touch pad, etc.. just there to hook us? Do the gaming companies actually know what the hell they're doing when they push these things on us or are they just pushing the technology out of the door in the hopes that someone will figure out what to do with it? Are we just gunea pigs for new technology? Forgive me, but sometimes, I have a hard time figuring out exactly what all of this new stuff brings to the table when it comes to improving my gaming experience.

nintendo was trying to come back hard in the console race after the GC throw down..... they capitalised on a new idea and first party games.... and the nintendo world in general..... I mean nintendo is to video game industry what disney is to theme parks.... the most famous world wide by far..... the most likable brand image probably but certainly not for grown ups most of the time.....

nintendo is a gateway to core gaming :P the ninty fans are just kidults who refuses to grow up lol :P (I'm just kidding, I love the ninty world and always have a good time with friends playing the famous titles, smash bros, mario kart, wii sport etc... ) but I'm the kind of guy that buys one system and stick with it.... the wii didn't appeal to me in the way HD consoles did... and there is simply no way I have a sony device in my house lol :P

Yesterday, I gave the Kinect Fun Labs a try. I didn't have much time to get into it, though. Anyway, I created a perfect copy of my daughter's stuffed tiger and controlled it on screen with my body. Then, I created an Avatar that looked like a cartoon character with a human face--creepy, to say the least. Then, I went to bed. I figure the AR games on the 3DS will give me the same feeling. A cool bit of tech that I'll probably try once and forget before moving back to traditional games.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE games like Dance Central just like people loved games like Guitar Hero. I just don't know how much longevity they can provide and if they're the right direction to move in. I guess, like a lot of us, I don't know what I want. I just know that something feels wrong.