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

Forums - Gaming - If consoles go motion control standard next-gen, why are you going PC?

Rainbird on 04 November 2009
Khuutra said:
Rainbird said:

And you can't use PS Wand without a PS Eye, just like you can't use the Wiimote without the IR Bar. Say Nintendo had started the generation with a normal controller and had released the IR Bar as a seperate peripheral later on (I don't know what it might be used for, but it's not important). Then they decide to make a motion controller, and the smart thing to do here is obviously to use a peripheral they already have on the market.

I'm just guessing now, but if Sony decides to launch the PS4 with wands as the standard controller (not the wands we know now, but "next generation" wands obviously), then they would obviously have all the necessary equipment packed in with the console.

And just to clarify, this has nothing to do with what solution is best (Wiimote vs. Wand) right now, I'm speaking 100% about what I hope to see in the next generation of consoles.

Actually, that's not true. There are many games that use the Wii remote but not the IR bar, including several in Wii Sports.

Oh well, hardly ruins the argument. Nintendo did include it for a reason after all.



Around the Network
Khuutra on 04 November 2009
Rainbird said:
Khuutra said:

Actually, that's not true. There are many games that use the Wii remote but not the IR bar, including several in Wii Sports.

Oh well, hardly ruins the argument. Nintendo did include it for a reason after all.

Actually, in point of fact, none of the games in the original Wii Sports use the pointer functionality. The original showcase for motion controls didn't use IR sensing at all.

It's perfectly viable to design games without the IR pointer. You need it to interface with the Wii's OS more than anything else.



KungKras on 04 November 2009

^The Wii Sports menu used it.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Smidlee on 04 November 2009
Gnizmo said:
Rainbird said:
I don't understand the attitude against motion controls. If anything, this generation should teach us a good deal about what works and what doesn't with motion controls, and how they should be done in the next generation.

Right now all the solutions have inherent problems, though some of them are basic and will be fixed as the hardware grows more advanced for the next generation.

All solutions needs buttons though, which is why I see Natal as the one to be the least popular for a gamer of my kind. The optimal solution is to be found somewhere between Sony and Nintendo's solutions.

But Natal is still the most intriguing solution I think, though it may end up being nothing more than what the Sixaxis is today, unless Microsoft decides to do something very different from what the solution will be once Natal is released for the 360.

I'm excited to see what this will bring to games, but if it means sacrificing depth in gameplay, then it cannot be the definitive solution. I just hope that won't be the case when all is said and done.

Forgive me for being ignorant, but what sets the Wand apart from the Wiimote precisely? From what I can tell it is more a step back than a good aim for the middle ground. Nintendo's solution is close, but not quite there yet. Multiple controllers is a good, but inelegant solution.

Watch Johnny Chung Lee Wii head tracking video. Notice he didn't tape a wii-mote (camera) to his head but instead  use two IR lights glasses while using a stationary wii-mote. The difference is precision.  The nice thing about the mouse is you don't have to aim it at the mouse pad. Wii-mote IR pointing is like use a mouse and trying to aim at an invisible mouse pad 5-10 feet away.



Barozi on 04 November 2009
TruckOSaurus said:
Barozi said:
TruckOSaurus said:
Barozi said:
What nordlead said.
I'm playing games on my PC monitor and thus I'm sitting on a chair in front of it.
Furthermore I don't play games in short intervals and I don't see how I could play games with motion controls for a longer period of time.

I seriously hope you're not actually saying you couldn't physically do it, because that would mean you're extremely unfit.

Also, games like Super Mario Galaxy, that use small motion controls can be played for a long period of time and don't tire you out anymore than playing with a standard controller. Grand Slam Tennis is another story though, I can easily see someone having to take a break after a few games.

I need to constantly point the Wiimote on the screen and that's just an unnatural move. It's not possible to lift a book for a long period of time, so where's the difference between that and a Wiimote ?

Maybe we have a different definition of time, but I'm speaking of at least 2 hours non-stop.

You don't have to hold your arm up at all. My arms are resting on my thighs, the pointing is done by slight movements of my wrist.

We have about the same definition of time, I can play Mario Galaxy or Mario Kart Wii for 3-4 hours straight without any problem.

I tried it and it's not possible. My thighs are under the desk and even if I would distance myself a bit (my room isn't that big) I would still need to lift my arm.



Around the Network
Rainbird on 04 November 2009
Khuutra said:
Rainbird said:
Khuutra said:

Actually, that's not true. There are many games that use the Wii remote but not the IR bar, including several in Wii Sports.

Oh well, hardly ruins the argument. Nintendo did include it for a reason after all.

Actually, in point of fact, none of the games in the original Wii Sports use the pointer functionality. The original showcase for motion controls didn't use IR sensing at all.

It's perfectly viable to design games without the IR pointer. You need it to interface with the Wii's OS more than anything else.

Indeed, but would you honestly tell me that the Wii would be better off without it?

I'm not questioning that none-IR games aren't viable or doable, they are, but in todays standard of gaming, some genres of games are not viable without that extra control provided by either an analogue stick or something with a similar degree of control (point in case, the IR pointer)



Garnett on 04 November 2009

Because motion = casual and 

 



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

SuperAdrianK on 04 November 2009
Garnett said:

Because motion = casual and 

 

LOL

 

OT... press a button=waggle... there basically the same thing as I can play wii games for 3 hours straight... but I have lots of projects, shower and need to eat food... so no I dont get tired for holding a wii-mote a little higher, waggle it 3 cm or just kill monsters in twilight princess

 

P.s. I just took the push up test 'gasp' My arms felt like they were going to fall when I did my last push up...glad I passed though




              

Pyro as Bill on 04 November 2009

@Kantor

Wiimote and nunchuk can already do everything a classic controller can and more. The only game where a classic controller has better controls is Geometry Wars. Even if the wiimote/nunchuk didn't have motion control or the ir pointer I'd still prefer the splt pad over the classic pads.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Pyro as Bill on 04 November 2009
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Has anybody played a Wii game that actually made them tired? Other than Wii Sports, Wii Fit, EA Sports Active, or Dance Dance Revolution?

Because every time I see somebody say "motion controls are too exhausting, you have to jump all over the room" I immediately think that they have never ever touched a Wii and think it's just like the very first Wii commercials where paid actors jump all over the room.

Twighlight Princess made me tired but that's because I didn't go to sleep.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!