By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - No more MOTION CONTROLS for NINTENDO?

welcome to:  http://www.famalegoods.com

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,****, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time.


free shipping

competitive price

any size available

accept the paypal

http://www.famalegoods.com


jordan shoes $32

nike shox $32

Christan Audigier bikini $23

Ed Hardy Bikini $23

Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15

ed hardy short_tank_woman $16

Sandal $32

christian louboutin $80

Sunglass $15

COACH_Necklace $27

handbag $33

AF tank woman $17

puma slipper woman $30

http://www.famalegoods.com



Around the Network
Rainbird said:
Mr Khan said:
Rainbird said:
Mr Khan said:

Motion controls were developed for software in their case, and not the other way around. Though it rationally appears that they are obligated to use these controls, internally they see it differently, something that the makers of Move and Kinect fail to grasp

How exactly is it different from Move and Kinect? I couldn't tell you much about Microsoft, but so far, Lionhead seems to be doing fine without Kinect compatibility in Fable 3. And Sony don't force their studios to do anything. Sony provides the tools and the studios decide what to do with them. No one is forced to do 3D or motion controls or hardware-pushing graphics.

I'm not saying that they're being forced to use the compatibility at all, but that the general mentality of Kinect and Move development seemed to be "okay, here's this hardware, what can we do with it?" as opposed to "I have this idea with a game, how can the hardware R&D guys help actualize it?"

Which, at least for Sony, is the same mentality. It's not about what can be done with the hardware, it's about whether the studios want to do something with the hardware. The studios already working on projects look at it and try to see if it will do anything for their game. If they like what it does, they're free to use it, which is exactly what's happening with Killzone 3 and SOCOM 4.

But they have also gone out and asked around to see if anybody had something they wanted to do with it, that's how they get their launch games, and it would be a pretty horrible decision not to, since they care about selling units in the holidays.

No, it's not. People love to attribute attributes of Nintendo to Sony and Microsoft with out any backing.

Move and Kinect exist only because the Wii was successful. This is why they both made carbon copy games like Eyepet, Move Party, Joyride and the Sports Pack. They didn't sit there and say "We have this game idea, but it needs motion controls." (and they can't because their software and hardware development as seperate). They, as executives said, "Wii is successful. We need motion controls."



Smashchu2 said:
Rainbird said:

Which, at least for Sony, is the same mentality. It's not about what can be done with the hardware, it's about whether the studios want to do something with the hardware. The studios already working on projects look at it and try to see if it will do anything for their game. If they like what it does, they're free to use it, which is exactly what's happening with Killzone 3 and SOCOM 4.

But they have also gone out and asked around to see if anybody had something they wanted to do with it, that's how they get their launch games, and it would be a pretty horrible decision not to, since they care about selling units in the holidays.

No, it's not. People love to attribute attributes of Nintendo to Sony and Microsoft with out any backing.

Move and Kinect exist only because the Wii was successful. This is why they both made carbon copy games like Eyepet, Move Party, Joyride and the Sports Pack. They didn't sit there and say "We have this game idea, but it needs motion controls." (and they can't because their software and hardware development as seperate). They, as executives said, "Wii is successful. We need motion controls."

As I said, it would have been a huge mistake not to go out and ask developers if they wanted to make Move games from the start. Sony wouldn't have had any launch titles if they did it that way. But Sony aren't mandating anything from their own studios, and here is your backing.

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/06/18/interview-media-molecules-alex-evans/

"Yeah, so, Sony is happy for us to do whatever we want as far as we can tell. As long as it's not Oranges from Space or something stupid like that."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-09-27-sucker-punch-talks-infamous-2-interview?page=3

"We've never thought of Sony as just a distribution arm. They've done a great job as a publisher for us, both giving us the freedom and helping us with marketing and decisions about how to make the game. They're providing us with a lot of great tools for making the game we want to make."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/sonys-ray-maguire-interview?page=2

"Eurogamer: OK then. Are you insisting that all the games coming out of your internal studios have 3D functionality?

Ray Maguire: No. Will there be a lot of 3D development? Yes, but I don't think we'll ever mandate anything. Creativity is about creativity, and you can be creative in whatever format you like, for whatever genre you like. Putting handcuffs on people is never the way Sony's been - we're all about innovation and trying new things."



@Rainbird: What you're trying to prove, I have no idea.

The point is that Sony did not make the software than the hardware. In other words, the hardware happened before the software. Nintendo made the Wii because they could see software for it. The whole reason the Wii Remote exist is for games like Wii Sports that use it. So it should be no surprise that when Sony and Microsoft make one, the games turn into Wii games in HD.

The point was not that they lack software, but that they truely are not designing hardwarwe around software ideas (if they were, they would come up with stuff more interesting than Eyepet).



Motion controls are kind of a natural progression really, so while Nintendo may not be "focussing" their attention on them next gen, this will only be because they are becoming the norm (not obligatory, but the norm... just as with the control stick)



Around the Network
Smashchu2 said:

@Rainbird: What you're trying to prove, I have no idea.

The point is that Sony did not make the software than the hardware. In other words, the hardware happened before the software. Nintendo made the Wii because they could see software for it. The whole reason the Wii Remote exist is for games like Wii Sports that use it. So it should be no surprise that when Sony and Microsoft make one, the games turn into Wii games in HD.

The point was not that they lack software, but that they truely are not designing hardwarwe around software ideas (if they were, they would come up with stuff more interesting than Eyepet).

There's been some mis communication here, but I know what you're saying and I agree, I had just interpreted this as a discussion on whether Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft force their internal developers to use the tools that are put at their disposal, and how developers either say "What can we do with this stuff?" or "How can this supplement our game?".

Sorry if I came off as snide.



@smashchu  Eyepet was released way b4 Move, and as far as I know there is no Wii equivelant to that. your right about that



I doubt they wou7ld abandon motion controls (the 3Ds has them) but instead make them secondary (liek the 3DS)



oniyide said:

@smashchu  Eyepet was released way b4 Move, and as far as I know there is no Wii equivelant to that. your right about that


Nintendogs?  Kinectimals seems like a more direct riff though.



I just want a real lightsaber game. So far we had the ones without motion plus, and kinect is getting a rail one.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs