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

Forums - Gaming - Do Next-Gen Games Give Us Next-Gen Gameplay?

GhaudePhaede010 on 05 May 2008

Pro Evolution Soccer on Wii isscreaming at you, "YES WE HAVE NEXT GEN GAME PLAY TO OFFER!"

More will come in time. And we are not more than two years into the PS3 and Wii liftecycle. Sorry if someone else already mentioned it as I have not read everything.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

Around the Network
Reasonable on 05 May 2008
Viper1 said:

@Naz and Reasonable.

Does for me at least. I can point to any location on my TV with the Wii-mote just as fast as I can with the mouse. Perhaps the accuracy is not an issue with the Wii-mote itself but the skill of the user.

You also have to consider with a monitor and mouse, you are usually no more than 2-3 fee away from the screen but can be much further with a TV and Wii-mote. Try getting 3 feet from your TV and twitch your wrist side to side. You'll move the on screen cursor every bit as fast as you will with a mouse.

The biggest benefit to the mouse is friction. Stopping precisely were you like can be easier with a mouse because of friction against the mouse pad where as the Wii-mote has friction with just air...far less stopping power. Again, this probably comes down to user skill.


You don't judge stuff like this based on 1 data point (i.e. you).

If you got 100 people and got them to use Wiimote and mouse for accuracy test involving selecting a designated position on a screen the average score for mouse would be higher than Wiimote.  This runs true in this scenario for all motion sensing.  It's just not as accurate on average.

And as for user skill - the most skilled mouse user would cream the most skilled Wiimote user in a similar situation.

As I said you might as well give this up.  And you should practise more with a mouse because if you're more accurate with a Wiimote then I can only assume you suck with a mouse....

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Viper1 on 05 May 2008

I don't think it's that I suck with a mouse, it's just real quick with the Wii-mote, I suppose.

Something else to consider; with the mouse, the whole screen moves when you move the mouse but with the Wii-mote it doesn't so you're free to point and shoot at what's on screen. I think this is why I think the accuracy can be greater but this is game dependent. If a FPS on the PC allowed for screen lock like the Wii-mote does, it would likely be more accurate. However, both are superior to analog sticks which brings us more on topic regarding next gen gameplay.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

TheRealMafoo on 05 May 2008
Viper1 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Viper1 said:

@Naz and Reasonable.

Again, this probably comes down to user skill.


I agree, but understand that for me to get from one side of a 2560 resolution screen to the other with a mouse, takes less then an inch (so that's less then half an inch for a normal monitor). So that's 8x less the distance it takes you.

So yes, it comes down to skill ;) 

Goodness, how small is your screen?

I have a 21"monitor (17" inches across horizontally).    I just measured how far my mouse must move to traverse all 17" and I estimating a good deal too much.  It was 1.8 inches.  I measured using the Wii-mote also on a TV with a 17" horizontal screen and the motion was dependant on how far from the screen I was.  It was also harder to meaure because you're not moving perfectly side to side but sweeping yrou wrist side to side at an angle.  At 4 feet from the TV, twice as far from my monitor with the mouse, the motion from screen edge to screen edge was approx the same distance as with the mouse.

It can be conluded that if you can move your Wii-mote with the same speed as your mouse, your own screen accuracy should remain (keeping in mind the difference between air and mouse pad resistence and skill level).

 

Therefore, accuracy is again a matter of personal skill.  If you're skilled with a mouse already, you probably won't find much gained via the Wii-mote.  If you are not yet as skilled with the mouse, the Wii-mote will be more accurate for you first since the motion is more natural.


My monitor is 30", I have this:

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=222-7175

I use variable speed mousing, so if I move the mouse faster, it moves farther.

Anyway, this issue is not distance, is resolution. In every Wii game, you have a large cursor. You are not trying to point at one pixel. This helps a lot. You are also using LED lights, and it does not have the fidelity to pick up 2560 different discrete locations across the screen (even if it could, you only have 600 or so pixels in a Wii game). I am not knocking it, as it does not need to do such a thing . That's not it's purpose. I am just saying it's not a accurate.

 



Viper1 on 06 May 2008

So you're saying it's not as accurate simply because the horizontal pixel count is different? Actually, you are incorrect as Nintendo has already stated the accuracy is pixel perfect even on HDTV's. Granted, it will count that pixel and the surrounding pixels as one in the game itself, it will accurately target any pixel.


' the console's controller can detect its exact location and orientation in 3D space' with 'pixel-perfect accuracy'.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Around the Network
CAL4M1TY on 06 May 2008

I'd say next generation games give us next gen game play.

Not just the wii, because in case anyone was wondering, Nintendo didn't invent motion sensor technology, so that is technically "last generation". What makes the Wii next gen is that it's streamlined and made the experience much more appealing/interesting/accessible. I would say Metroid Prime 3 is a next generation experience because they hadn't made a game with such tight controls uptil that point, though I'm sure it's been done before (arcades etc).

For the other two so called "last-gen gameplay machines", I would definitely say the cover system is a big one. Yes cover system has been done before, but like the Wii's motion controls, it has never been done this well. Gears did it so well in fact that it feels natural that ALL action/shooters must have some form of cover these days (whether it be physically leaning against a wall like in Gears or just ducking behind something and moving the camera slowly to get a clear shot like in COD4).

Another one would probably be a fully living city. Yes sandboxes worlds were done last gen, but honestly, comparing GTA4 and GTA3 (and extensions) theres a huge difference in the world. The world feels alive in GTA4 where as in GTA3 all the NPC felt so robotic and lifeless with a few catch phrases. Ditto Assassin's Creed, the number of characters moving and interacting with each other and the world is astounding in that game.

Personally, while I can understand why people believe Wii is the only next gen gameplay experience, there's a reason people (including developers) say that X game couldn't be done last generation. Gameplay isn't as obvious as just the amount of physical interactivity you have with the game, but also the amount of interactivity your character has with the world (i.e cover system) and it's inhabitants and what they can do without your input.