You're arguing semantics. Something that is more complex is often synonymous with "more advanced". For example, if you poll 100 people on the street as to which is more advanced, a computer or a hammer, I would think that almost if not all the people would say "the computer" even though they are 2 different technologies paths completely. A computer is not part of the linear development of hammer technology yet it is clearly far more advanced.
In this case it's even more true since both deviced are motion control systems for video game platforms. That the way they achieve the results is different doesn't preclude the fact the Natal system is more advanced because it can do things that WM+ can't.
The problem with reductio ad absurdum arguments is how easy they are to screw up.
Case in point: one cannot compare a "hammer" to a "computer" in the context of the argument I'm making, which is that different technological means that achieve the same ends cannot necessarily be said to be more or less advanced than one another if they do not use the same means to achieve those ends. A hammer cannot be said to be more or less advanced than a wrench, nor can a pair of pliers be said to be more or less advanced than, say, a nutcracker.
The idea of something being more advanced because it can "do things that [blank] can't" is equally absurd: it's like saying the Wright brothers plane is more advanced than a hydrogen cell automobile because it can fly while the hydrogen cell automobile cannot.
Further than that, the WM+ is capable of functions that Natal isn't capable of, either, including operating as a more sensitive tilt sensor (we've seen nothing that suggests Natal is particularly capable of this, much less as sensitive as the Wii remote), providing tacticle feedback, and incorporating buttons so that different gametypes can be experienced without extra hardware. It's true that the Wiimote can't recognize when I'm frowning at it, as I may do, but it is also true that Natal has no way of telling when I'm trying to pull a trigger, or press the gas in a car, or change the angle of a camera.
I cannot see a reasonable argument for Natal being more advanced - it is just different.
And, you fail.
The fact that you are trying to use the Write brother's plane vs, a hydrogen powered vehicle, is just sad. Thats compairing apples to oranges. Here, however, we are compairing two similar items, in the way that they are both used to controll games. So I think the more realistic argument would be, what is more advanced, the gasoline powered car? Or the hydrogen powered car. Both of these are meant to move the average consumer in a relativly cheap and fast way. The fact that NATAL deletes the need for a waggle device completely tells me that it is a true advancement, and thus it would be synonomous to the argument I listed above in the way that the hydrogen powered car would render the gasoline powered one obsolete.
Further than that, NATAL is capable of eliminating the need for a Wiimote. You don't need a tilt sensor (it sees you move, it sees you "tilt"), buttons (instead of pressing a button to jump, just jump), and if you truly need that "tactical" feedback, then you can use a prop, just scan it. Can you imagine playing Halo 3 where master cheif could fire 50 cal bullets out of a nerf gun with high accuracy?
That was his entire point. Wii remotes and Natal are apples and oranges. Or at least grapefruits and oranges. A shovel and a bulldozer perfrom basically the same function but that doesn't mean they're the same technology. They're both used to move dirt. Something tells me you won't be using a bulldozer to plant carrots.
Natal does not eliminate the need for one very important thing the wii remote has, buttons. Sure you can jump to make your character jump, but as gesture based controls have shown us there is always a delay.
Wii and Natal are both game controllers, and are both motion controll, so no, you should be compairing apples to apples, not apples to oranges. A shovel moves a little amount of dirt, and is human powered, I would consider it a first gen console controller, a Bulldoser, moves more dirt with suprising precision, I would consider it NATAL, therefore your argument fails. Also,how many times can I say this, YOU DO NOT NEED FUCKING BUTTONS! NATAL completely eliminates the need for them. instead of having to press a button, you can actualy DO what the button would have done. Lastly, the fact that MS plans to allow you to play COD, and Halo with NATAL, tells me that they have a plan do eliminate the "lag".
The problem with reductio ad absurdum arguments is how easy they are to screw up.
Case in point: one cannot compare a "hammer" to a "computer" in the context of the argument I'm making, which is that different technological means that achieve the same ends cannot necessarily be said to be more or less advanced than one another if they do not use the same means to achieve those ends. A hammer cannot be said to be more or less advanced than a wrench, nor can a pair of pliers be said to be more or less advanced than, say, a nutcracker.
The idea of something being more advanced because it can "do things that [blank] can't" is equally absurd: it's like saying the Wright brothers plane is more advanced than a hydrogen cell automobile because it can fly while the hydrogen cell automobile cannot.
Further than that, the WM+ is capable of functions that Natal isn't capable of, either, including operating as a more sensitive tilt sensor (we've seen nothing that suggests Natal is particularly capable of this, much less as sensitive as the Wii remote), providing tacticle feedback, and incorporating buttons so that different gametypes can be experienced without extra hardware. It's true that the Wiimote can't recognize when I'm frowning at it, as I may do, but it is also true that Natal has no way of telling when I'm trying to pull a trigger, or press the gas in a car, or change the angle of a camera.
I cannot see a reasonable argument for Natal being more advanced - it is just different.
And, you fail.
The fact that you are trying to use the Write brother's plane vs, a hydrogen powered vehicle, is just sad. Thats compairing apples to oranges. Here, however, we are compairing two similar items, in the way that they are both used to controll games. So I think the more realistic argument would be, what is more advanced, the gasoline powered car? Or the hydrogen powered car. Both of these are meant to move the average consumer in a relativly cheap and fast way. The fact that NATAL deletes the need for a waggle device completely tells me that it is a true advancement, and thus it would be synonomous to the argument I listed above in the way that the hydrogen powered car would render the gasoline powered one obsolete.
Further than that, NATAL is capable of eliminating the need for a Wiimote. You don't need a tilt sensor (it sees you move, it sees you "tilt"), buttons (instead of pressing a button to jump, just jump), and if you truly need that "tactical" feedback, then you can use a prop, just scan it. Can you imagine playing Halo 3 where master cheif could fire 50 cal bullets out of a nerf gun with high accuracy?
Actually, you're quite wrong: both a plane and a car are just a means of conveyance. The fact that a plane can fly and a car can only roll is the point, here. The car vs. plane argument was not meant to be an exact comparison anyway; mine was the reductio ad absurdum argument, in this case. The claim that extra function makes something more advanced is inherently fallacious, and you are not doing well in avoiding this point.
"Deletes the need for a waggle device"? Really now. It has already superceded the need for buttons, the ability to tilt, and the need for tactile feedback to make controls either precise or meaningful. I would love for you to show me the proof of concept on that one, because if you don't - well, I think you know what GIF I'll pull out.
The NATAL has not yet demonstrated itself as being sensitive enough to detect slight tilts in the way the Wiimote can.
It has no shown itself capable of doing simple things like simulating the experience of driving a car - where's the gas pedal? More, if you need to jump in order to jump, you're excluding every single person who can't jump, and you're opening a whole can of worms in that game design needs to be either limited in such a way that people with more common disabilities can still use it, or leave out a sizable demographic of gamers. Even deeper - well, you still haven't shown how you can pull a trigger.
The NATAL is very neat. I look forward to seeing it demo'd with software that will show off its capabilities. But so far all we've seen is a shaky proof of concept that, while conceptually impressive, was underwhelming on a practical level. There's a reason some are callign it "full body waggle".
And no, I can't imagine buying a video game and then having to use props for it. That would be completely absurd, and considerably increase the cost of a hobby that is already expensive enough.
These are some very silly arguments you are making.
Was this demonstrated at all because looking at the video thats not exactly the same thing. Judging by the video that camera is only tracking your silhouette, it's not doing 3D motion tracking and cannot cope with occlusion to the extent Natal can. Also notice she is in a brightly lit room, with a background that is light and she is dark so that the camera can see her easily.
Natal is doing full body tracking in THREE DIMENSIONS. For example, lets say you're doing a pose with your body square to the camera and your arms held out straight in front of your chest, palms together. Based on your silhoutte that camera would not be able to tell what your arms were doing because it would be in the same 2D space as your chest. You could have your arms straight, bent at the elbows and hands up like a prayer pose and to the camera it couldn't tell the difference between that and your arms straight out. Natal can see in z-space, depth, it would be able to see where your arms are, how forward they are, even if your hands are flat against their palms or your fingers are locked together in a fist.
Do you see the difference?
As a gamer I see the difference in the tech..but I'm doubtful your average casual consumer will...
..and if they do I'm not sure they will care.
I agree. General consumers would only know they are fitness games with cameras but they wouldn't know the difference between the cameras. Then it would come down to cost to entice the consumers to buy it.
The problem with reductio ad absurdum arguments is how easy they are to screw up.
Case in point: one cannot compare a "hammer" to a "computer" in the context of the argument I'm making, which is that different technological means that achieve the same ends cannot necessarily be said to be more or less advanced than one another if they do not use the same means to achieve those ends. A hammer cannot be said to be more or less advanced than a wrench, nor can a pair of pliers be said to be more or less advanced than, say, a nutcracker.
The idea of something being more advanced because it can "do things that [blank] can't" is equally absurd: it's like saying the Wright brothers plane is more advanced than a hydrogen cell automobile because it can fly while the hydrogen cell automobile cannot.
Further than that, the WM+ is capable of functions that Natal isn't capable of, either, including operating as a more sensitive tilt sensor (we've seen nothing that suggests Natal is particularly capable of this, much less as sensitive as the Wii remote), providing tacticle feedback, and incorporating buttons so that different gametypes can be experienced without extra hardware. It's true that the Wiimote can't recognize when I'm frowning at it, as I may do, but it is also true that Natal has no way of telling when I'm trying to pull a trigger, or press the gas in a car, or change the angle of a camera.
I cannot see a reasonable argument for Natal being more advanced - it is just different.
And, you fail.
The fact that you are trying to use the Write brother's plane vs, a hydrogen powered vehicle, is just sad. Thats compairing apples to oranges. Here, however, we are compairing two similar items, in the way that they are both used to controll games. So I think the more realistic argument would be, what is more advanced, the gasoline powered car? Or the hydrogen powered car. Both of these are meant to move the average consumer in a relativly cheap and fast way. The fact that NATAL deletes the need for a waggle device completely tells me that it is a true advancement, and thus it would be synonomous to the argument I listed above in the way that the hydrogen powered car would render the gasoline powered one obsolete.
Further than that, NATAL is capable of eliminating the need for a Wiimote. You don't need a tilt sensor (it sees you move, it sees you "tilt"), buttons (instead of pressing a button to jump, just jump), and if you truly need that "tactical" feedback, then you can use a prop, just scan it. Can you imagine playing Halo 3 where master cheif could fire 50 cal bullets out of a nerf gun with high accuracy?
Actually, you're quite wrong: both a plane and a car are just a means of conveyance. The fact that a plane can fly and a car can only roll is the point, here. The car vs. plane argument was not meant to be an exact comparison anyway; mine was the reductio ad absurdum argument, in this case. The claim that extra function makes something more advanced is inherently fallacious, and you are not doing well in avoiding this point.
"Deletes the need for a waggle device"? Really now. It has already superceded the need for buttons, the ability to tilt, and the need for tactile feedback to make controls either precise or meaningful. I would love for you to show me the proof of concept on that one, because if you don't - well, I think you know what GIF I'll pull out.
The NATAL has not yet demonstrated itself as being sensitive enough to detect slight tilts in the way the Wiimote can.
It has no shown itself capable of doing simple things like simulating the experience of driving a car - where's the gas pedal? More, if you need to jump in order to jump, you're excluding every single person who can't jump, and you're opening a whole can of worms in that game design needs to be either limited in such a way that people with more common disabilities can still use it, or leave out a sizable demographic of gamers. Even deeper - well, you still haven't shown how you can pull a trigger.
The NATAL is very neat. I look forward to seeing it demo'd with software that will show off its capabilities. But so far all we've seen is a shaky proof of concept that, while conceptually impressive, was underwhelming on a practical level. There's a reason some are callign it "full body waggle".
And no, I can't imagine buying a video game and then having to use props for it. That would be completely absurd, and considerably increase the cost of a hobby that is already expensive enough.
These are some very silly arguments you are making.
Where to begin? Well, Once again, your silly argument fails in that, you are still not seeing the point I am making I don't know how many times I must rehash it. How many times I need to repackage it before you understand, but I will try again.
Your argument about the car and plane are completely irrelevant here, we are still comparing gaming devices with motion control, used on consoles, to play video games are we not ? A car, and a plane are very different, their only similarities are that they both hold passengers, and they move people, and even those, in most cases are a huge difference. To put your argument in gaming terms, you are compairing a computer mouse with a gaming controller, both can be used to play games, but are for completely different applications. Have I made this clear yet? Or shall we have another go?
Yes, NATAL deletes all need for a controller of any kind or a gaming remote. What do you usually use buttons for? Every single application for a button can be acted out by YOU. As far as being tacticle, how the heck is using a Wii mote any more tacticle, there is no resistance there, save the weight of the waggle wand, and even that is negligable. On the trigger point, well anybody with common sence could detract from what MS has said thus far, that it will be possible. After all, they did say that YOU are the controller, to give you a waggle would destroy the very essence of their add campiegn, and they did say that they were working on COD and HALO for NATAL. Lastly, I did say on earlier posts (several times I believe) that all games created to work with NATAL should also work with the origional 360 controller. But you obviously didn't read that.
I think this video, (which you obviously didn't see) answers your silly gas pedal question since it shows somebody driving a car (even shifting). It also should be a sufficiant reply to your "it needs the ability to tilt" statment, after all, a person can be see at the end of the video surfing movies on netflix with the flick of a wrist. Also, near the middle of the vid, a girl grabs a dress from a menu and puts it onto her avitar. She grabbed it! need I say more?
So basically, your arguments are VERY shaky. Mine, I actually have facts to back them up and not speculation.
I think this video, (which you obviously didn't see) answers your silly gas pedal question since it shows somebody driving a car (even shifting). It also should be a sufficiant reply to your "it needs the ability to tilt" statment, after all, a person can be see at the end of the video surfing movies on netflix with the flick of a wrist. Also, near the middle of the vid, a girl grabs a dress from a menu and puts it onto her avitar. She grabbed it! need I say more?
So basically, your arguments are VERY shaky. Mine, I actually have facts to back them up and not speculation.
Oh Jesus. Oh Jesus, I didn't realize what I was arguing with here. Hold on. Allow me to collect myself.
Listen. I'm ignoring the rest of this post. You're pretty clear on you not being willing to consider the viewpoint that not all technology is necessarily a linear progression, so that's going to be left alone. The other long paragraph I left out is basically just a repeat of this anyway.
I saw this video. Everyone saw this video. God saw this video. I think my grandmother probably saw this video.
I didn't realize you were using it as a baseline for actually saying what the NATAL could do. This isn't what the NATAL can do. The NATAL's only real-world application so far is that dodgeball thinger. This video? It's all simulated. THat's conceptual.
None of that is real.
Even in the video, there's no way to control the acceleration of the car. Or turn when you're riding a skateboard. Or do a lot of things in games that we consider very normal.
Please tell me I misunderstood and that you're just saying that all of that will be possible with NATAL because you believe Microsoft's extremely optimistic predictions instead of you actually thinking that that was real. Because after that whole spiel about how the girl driving the car was a proof of concept...
Wow.
I've never said this before, not in my entire history at VGChartz, but your argument just crashed and burned so spectacularly I think I could just walk away right now and not do any more damage to it.
I think this video, (which you obviously didn't see) answers your silly gas pedal question since it shows somebody driving a car (even shifting). It also should be a sufficiant reply to your "it needs the ability to tilt" statment, after all, a person can be see at the end of the video surfing movies on netflix with the flick of a wrist. Also, near the middle of the vid, a girl grabs a dress from a menu and puts it onto her avitar. She grabbed it! need I say more?
So basically, your arguments are VERY shaky. Mine, I actually have facts to back them up and not speculation.
Oh Jesus. Oh Jesus, I didn't realize what I was arguing with here. Hold on. Allow me to collect myself.
Listen. I'm ignoring the rest of this post. You're pretty clear on you not being willing to consider the viewpoint that not all technology is necessarily a linear progression, so that's going to be left alone. The other long paragraph I left out is basically just a repeat of this anyway.
I saw this video. Everyone saw this video. God saw this video. I think my grandmother probably saw this video.
I didn't realize you were using it as a baseline for actually saying what the NATAL could do. This isn't what the NATAL can do. The NATAL's only real-world application so far is that dodgeball thinger. This video? It's all simulated. THat's conceptual.
None of that is real.
Even in the video, there's no way to control the acceleration of the car. Or turn when you're riding a skateboard. Or do a lot of things in games that we consider very normal.
Please tell me I misunderstood and that you're just saying that all of that will be possible with NATAL because you believe Microsoft's extremely optimistic predictions instead of you actually thinking that that was real. Because after that whole spiel about how the girl driving the car was a proof of concept...
Wow.
I've never said this before, not in my entire history at VGChartz, but your argument just crashed and burned so spectacularly I think I could just walk away right now and not do any more damage to it.
Damn straight you didn't realize who you were arguing with. I'm not letting you off that easy. That video is a representation of what MS want NATAL to do. It is also a Demo, meaning that they were (let me speak slowly here) d-e-m-o-n-s-t-r-a-t-i-n-g it's capabilities. In case you didn't see the vid (I still don't believe you did, otherwise we would not be having this debate) there is a girl in there driving a race car, she happens to be pretending to hold a steering wheel, when she moves her hands, the car turns. Its a pretty simple concept, why you can't grasp that is beyond me. Lets put it this way, this technology is already alive and working in the PC world. That right their trashes your whole argument. Also, ALL technology follows a linear progression. No way around it, there are certainly branches off that linear progress, but each branch progresses in a linear fashion. I would say walk away before you pour gasoline on the ashes that were your argument, and light it on fire...buuuut, I am a pyro at heart, so, light away!
No, NATAL is too expensive for most of the exergame fans, and as a result exergaming won't take off this gen on NATAL
Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!! It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!! Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)
Avinash_Tyagi said: No, NATAL probably is going to be too expensive for most of the exergame fans, and as a result exergaming won't take off this gen on NATAL
Fixed. thats a debatable topic. I hope it's not too expensive, and MS would be down right stupid to price it too high. But as long as no price is known, this is just speculation.
