3D and motion controls aren't gimmicks.

[MasterV]

Sales seem to paint a different picture, as they did with motion controls.

I agree on the fact that sales paint a different picture. A different picture than what they did with the motion controls. Here, have a look.

http://tinyurl.com/5wq2b68

Don't be fooled by the initial explosion. This is the Hollywood tactics emplyed by the game industry as well. Something can be called successful only if it can sustain healthy sales. 4 million 3DSes in the first two weeks (which obviously included pre-orders) don't mean anything, other than show the number of early technology adopters. Nintendo said the "killer-app" of the 3DS is the included software, meaning steroscopic 3D applications and AR games. We can see how well the consumers responded to that. I can say the same for Kinect, but that's another story.

Anyways, I'll let you in on a little secret. The Wii and the revolution it brought wasn't only motion control. It was the (unfortunately only) theoretical notion that you could play whichever way you damn well pleased. Play NES style, play Nunchuk&Wiimote, play with Classic controller or with your old GC controller. There was motion control and it was exciting, but there were other options for those who didn't like it right out of the box, regardless of the fact that later on, Nintendo themselves would start getting sidetracked and adding unnecessary motions to games that didn't need them (DKCR and Metroid Other M are prime examples of this), thus seriously hamstringing your choice of controls.

And this is why people view motion controls as a gimmick. When it's shoved down your throat without much thought or without taking into consideration your personal preferences for controlling games, people start getting annoyed.

 

[Aurgelmir]

3D and motion controls aren't gimmicks. At least, they aren't any more gimmicky than HD graphics or realistic physics. I realize that 3D and motion controls don't appeal to everybody, but I have yet to see a valid argument as to why these two elements are inherently more gimmicky than the innovations listed above (and yes, this includes Yahtzee's articles as well).

With 3D in particular, I'm surprised how quickly people were able to dismiss it as a "meaningless graphical upgrade" without thinking about how an added perception on depth can add to gameplay. For example, I never particularly liked the Pilotwings series before because I always found it difficult to accurately judge distances on a 2D screen. The 3DS has fixed this problem wonderfully, and it's a shame that the rest of the game doesn't stand up to the brilliant use of that mechanic. Similarly, Shigeru Miyamoto has mentioned that the reason we had to wait until Mario 3DS to see the return of the raccoon suit is because the powerup was simply too difficult to use in a 3D environment on 2D screens. At the very least that's two genres (flight sims and platformers) where the gameplay will directly benefit from 3D. Can you honestly say that HD graphics has affected gameplay in even one genre?

I hate to turn this into another casual vs hardcore rant, but it seems to me like that is really where the "gimmick" line is drawn. Take motion controls and next-gen physics for example. For every shovel-ware party game that takes advantage of the "waggle" controls, there's an asinine shooter that wastes its physics engine on making more detailed explosions. Heck, I can't even think of a shooter that uses physics in gameplay without resorting to copying HL2's gravity gun (and even then they seem to use it simply as a "physics object gun" rather than a tool to strategically manipulate your environment with. So why is it that physics are still considered a game-changing feature, whereas motion controls are just a gimmick? I honestly can't see any gameplay difference between the two aside from the fact that one is generally used in "hardcore" games whereas the other is more associated with "causal" games.

Well Motion controllers and 3D are currently very gimmicky because they are used poorly.
I will use the new Thor movie as an example on how 3D is just a gimmick:
I have seen this Movie twice now in 3d (awesome movie), and I have concluded that the movie did not give me any new previously unfelt experience.
But I actually believe that 3D CAN change the future of gaming, as long as some of the hurdles are overcome.
Right now 3D either require glasses or a 3DS. the 3DS system is not simple to translate over to a TV (Due to sitting angles etc), but it might be transfered to PC screens. My biggest gripe is that we are excluding a LARGE portion of the market with current 3D technologies, as a lot of people lack the ability to view it properly or get sick from doing so.
So why charge more for something less people can enjoy?

But you had two good examples of games where 3D can improve gameplay, but the 3D depth of field isn't always good, and I suspect distances might still be hard to judge in platformers (just a thought, might not be true)

As for motion controllers:
I personally feel they are still a gimmick, as they add a fun feature to the platform, but also exclude my favorite feature of console gaming: Relaxing on my couch while playing.

Morion controllers require me to often stand up and be active. As much as being active is a good thing it is not the prime reason I game, so if all consoles had motion controls only I would probably not play them as much.


So all in all I feel 3D and Motion controls do not add any needed features as of now.

As for HD and physics:
This is to do with detail in a game. HD means you get better graphics, which in turns mean better detail in the picture.

Physics engines means that you can more accurately depict how something interact with the environment, which lets you create fun game play mechanics.

Both HD and Physics are the next step in an already existing evolution of computer games, where as 3D and Motion controls have been tried on MULTIPLE occasions and never succeeded.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Are people actually trying to say that HD affects gameplay any more than 3D or motion controls? This is hilarious.

Depends on the game, really.

Some simplistic arcade game or racer or whatever, I wouldn't be bothered sitting at SD or significantly less (or for the most detailed ones, maybe ED, i.e. SD rez but progressive and with square pixels).

But there's plenty others - shooters, strategy games for example - where you wouldn't put up with 640x480-ish on a PC monitor any more, so why should you be stuck at it (possibly even in interlace mode) on a console? 1:1 rez on a typical laptop screen counts as 720p-class resolution these days after all, it's not unusual. Show 848x480 on it and you'd definitely notice a loss in clarity.

That's not affecting gameplay though. Motion controls can affect gameplay speed, especially in shooters. 3D has less applications, but can be used to judge depth, which could also affect gameplay (more so than HD at least). Making things look nice and clear doesn't really affect the gameplay.

I was playing a 4v4 on Halo 3 at a friend's house on Monday, and our team was on a HDTV with an RGB scart cable, while the other was on a HDMI setup. We still won most of our matches.

 

[Trolldor]

Are people actually trying to say that HD affects gameplay any more than 3D or motion controls? This is hilarious.

Depends on the game, really.

Some simplistic arcade game or racer or whatever, I wouldn't be bothered sitting at SD or significantly less (or for the most detailed ones, maybe ED, i.e. SD rez but progressive and with square pixels).

But there's plenty others - shooters, strategy games for example - where you wouldn't put up with 640x480-ish on a PC monitor any more, so why should you be stuck at it (possibly even in interlace mode) on a console? 1:1 rez on a typical laptop screen counts as 720p-class resolution these days after all, it's not unusual. Show 848x480 on it and you'd definitely notice a loss in clarity.

That's not affecting gameplay though. Motion controls can affect gameplay speed, especially in shooters. 3D has less applications, but can be used to judge depth, which could also affect gameplay. Making things look nice and clear doesn't really affect the gameplay.

I was playing a 4v4 on Halo 3 at a friend's house on Monday, and our team was on a HDTV with an RGB scart cable, while the other was on a HDMI setup. We still won most of our matches.

3D won't help you judge depth because, as I said earlier, it's forcing your eye to do things it isn't supposed to do.
3D modelling is enough for depth.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Are people actually trying to say that HD affects gameplay any more than 3D or motion controls? This is hilarious.

Depends on the game, really.

Some simplistic arcade game or racer or whatever, I wouldn't be bothered sitting at SD or significantly less (or for the most detailed ones, maybe ED, i.e. SD rez but progressive and with square pixels).

But there's plenty others - shooters, strategy games for example - where you wouldn't put up with 640x480-ish on a PC monitor any more, so why should you be stuck at it (possibly even in interlace mode) on a console? 1:1 rez on a typical laptop screen counts as 720p-class resolution these days after all, it's not unusual. Show 848x480 on it and you'd definitely notice a loss in clarity.

That's not affecting gameplay though. Motion controls can affect gameplay speed, especially in shooters. 3D has less applications, but can be used to judge depth, which could also affect gameplay. Making things look nice and clear doesn't really affect the gameplay.

I was playing a 4v4 on Halo 3 at a friend's house on Monday, and our team was on a HDTV with an RGB scart cable, while the other was on a HDMI setup. We still won most of our matches.

3D won't help you judge depth because, as I said earlier, it's forcing your eye to do things it isn't supposed to do.
3D modelling is enough for depth.

Yeah, I was about to edit that post. I place 3D in the same league as HD in terms of use.

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

In my opinion, games should be sold on their gameplay and story. The reason why motion controls and 3D technology feels gimmicky is because they aren't adding anything to the gameplay and story. You could argue HD graphics do add to the story, but it's easy to see why people consider them to the gimmicks. I've never cared much about graphics so I don't really notice it all that much.

Though I wouldn't say the PS3 and Xbox as a whole are gimmicks. I'm a little confused about what you mean by physics though.

I already gave examples of how 3D and motion controls can affect gameplay, can you give one for HD graphics?

My point about physics is that although I do agree that it can be used to affect gameplay, in practice it's really only ever used to enhance graphics.

And who exactly prefers needing text to take up half the screen in order to read it? That's a silly argument. Nor does it address the other problem I had: fuzzy or unclear textures. HD only adds to our gaming experience, it doesn't subtract anything. That's why it's not a gimmick. See below for what motion controls/3D do subtract from the experience.

It's quite possible to enlarge text without it taking up half the screen. Who's honestly being the silly one here?

What's more, some of the text in the games I play is unreadable simply because the developer incorrectly assumes I have an HD display. If that's not subtracting from the experience, I don't know what is. In fact, I dare say that unreadable text has a much more negative impact on an experience than slightly lower resolutions.

Those "many people" might also find banging their heads against a wall more preferential to eating a delicious cheeseburger.

Again, who's being the silly one here? =)

That doesn't make it better. The facts are that motion controls aren't anywhere near as responsive or accurate as a mouse, and usually don't even live up to a standard controller in these categories, either. That's why they're classified as a gimmick. It's an attempt to get people to spend money that they don't need to.

The fact is that motion controls are much more responsive to people that haven't had the time/dexterity to get used to traditional controllers.

3D is no more or less responsive than 2D in general. My argument against 3D is the lack of comfort. You either wear a pair of glasses (REALLY sucks if you already have glasses) for long periods of time, or have to keep your head and eyes perfectly still in order to maintain the effect. That's counter-intuitive. Gaming and television have evolved over time to allow for maximum comfort while playing/viewing. And 3D takes that evolution one step backwards.

3D is much more responsive in games where depth matters, IE flight sims.

Comfort-wise I suppose I agree with you about the glasses, but I've had no problems with the 3DS. It's pretty forgiving in terms of angle/distance, although to be fair I'm not one of those people who thrashes the controller around a lot when I get into a game.

HD graphics are an evolution, a logical next step.

Fair enough, but then they are hardly a "feature" to be touted.

Physics are an innovation that doesn't have any awkward conditions for use.
Motion controls are neither of those things. Motion controls are a departure from the norm, restricted by physical exhaustion and lack of complexity. 3D, on the other hand, seems like it could work if it didn't either cause headaches or have awkward requirements for the full experience, such as keeping the screen at a certain angle.

Interesting you should mention this, because for many people traditional controllers are quite awkward to use. They are the departure from the norm, whereas motion controls are much more ideal.

Actually this is probably the best argument I've seen against 3D and motion controls so far. My only comment is that immersion is a highly subjective quality, and I don't know that you could definitively use it to label something gimmicky. Core gamers, for example, obviously think motion controls break immersion, but for your everyday person traditional controllers are much more of a deal breaker.

In fact, I know many people who actually have their immersion broken by HD graphics and physics due to the uncanny valley phenomenon. To them, hyper-realistic game is much more alienating than something like Wii Sports because they instantly compare it to real life. Something with more abstract graphics (like disembodied mii characters) doesn't have that problem, and in fact the players become more involved due to the customization options.

If you've ever read "Understanding Comics", it's the same principle as why it's easier to identify with a cartoony character than a realistically drawn one.

I should verify, that by "high definition," I mean pixel-to-pixel definition, not the, say, polygon count of character models and such. Team Fortress 2 wouldn't look as good as it does if it weren't utilizing top-tier HD graphics, and visuals benefit enormously from the crispness to them that only HD can provide. Also, the entrance of the Uncanny valley is a tricky place to actually verify objectively, because everyone draws their line at different points. I for one think LA Noire looks creepishly unreal, while others cite it as the first title they've seen that crawls successfully out the other side.

Immersion can also work the other way, I think. If you're told it's just a game, it won't be a problem when you're doing things you can only do in a game - Wii Sports' not-quite-right control motions are a good example. No-one can really complain "this isn't how you hold a tennis racket!" because it's a game. You aren't being convinced otherwise. Lack of "immersion" can work in a game's favour this way. That also goes to say, "yes... this is a gimmick guys. But it is fun, isn't it?" on behalf of the game.

If we're just talking about resolution, then I fail to see how HD really affects gameplay. Especially since we both agree that its affect on immersion is pretty subjective.

Because, for the most part, jagged, unsmooth frames and framerates are a bigger concern than missing a third dimension. The frame-by-frame progression is just a little more important a hurdle to overcome than if those frames are rendered so they stick out of the flat screen. 'Tis be why traditionally animated films don't "pull you out of the experience" any more than a live-action film.

I agree with you about framerates, but if anything that's negatively affected by going into HD.

As far as jaggies go, very few people aside from technophiles care about that sort of thing. The transition into 3D would have a much bigger impact on them.

You want arguments against 3D? It gives people headaches and motion sickness, requires you to downgrade your picture quality to achieve it and is about as 3D as me reading a pop up kids book. It also makes it difficult to focus on the actual depth of the field of vision you're expected to focus on, because everything is either VERY FOREGROUND or VERY BACKGROUND and the contrast is so vivid that you can't really guess much more than that.

As for motion controls, it's unreliable, requires more space to be done properly than most people have, is nothing like any logical action in reality i've ever come across (my ability to play wii golf actually improved by getting drunk) and generally lowers your ability to play the game. If I wanted games to be more difficult in a really frustratingly pointless way where I know I could be doing it properly but choose not to then I will sit on my sofa upside down and let all the blood flow into my skull.

Both of the above assume worst case scenarios for either feature. Yes, 3D can be exaggerated to the point where it's useless, or it can be used like it is in Pilotwings to actually improve gameplay. Similarly, games can overuse motion controls in situations where they are clearly detrimental, or they can use it like in Mario Galaxy, The Conduit, or the Wii Fit/Resort games.

3D is just a gimmick.

For one, it actually forces the eye to do something it did not evolve to do, which is really quite bad for you. It's like bending a joint in the wrong direction.
Secondly, it adds nothing. Depth perception works for VR games, and games using 3D models as opposed to a 3D screen already add perception through design.

There have been other studies refuting this point as well. I don't think there has been any definitive decision made yet on if it's bad for you or not.

Motion Controls are just a gimmick because not a single motion control has - yet- added anything to the industry. We aren't seeing new forms of gaming because of motion control, we are seeing old forms of gaming with a new control scheme.

Wii Fit, DS AR games. Might not be your cup of tea, but you can't deny that they are something new.

Also, by your above logic analogue sticks and trigger buttons would be considered gimmicks, too.

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

Edit: Double post, sorry.

 

[Trolldor]

Wii Fit, DS AR games. Might not be your cup of tea, but you can't deny that they are something new.

Also, by your above logic analogue sticks and trigger buttons would be considered gimmicks, too.

Ah, no.

Firstly, Analogue sticks and trigger buttons changed gameplay by opening up avenues both of movement and world interaction beyond simply adding extra buttons.
Secondly, wiifit isn't new. In fact exercise gimmicks have been around for quite some time, starting with those little step-counters all the way to arcade games like DDR. The idea of using a game as a motivator for exercise/activity is not new.

 

[ShadowAurora]

How is HD graphics a gimmick, it doesn't affect gameplay but it makes most games look smoother

but 3D just ruins graphics for a gimmick

How is 3D graphics a gimmick, it doesn't affect gameplay but it makes most games look three-dimensional.

Your words, not mine.

fair enough but if you had to choose which one do you think would help you enjoy the experience more?
i think its a gimmick because you either have to buy a special tv for gaming or wear glasses for the cinemas

 

[Casual Shinji]

Are people actually trying to say that HD affects gameplay any more than 3D or motion controls? This is hilarious.

No, it doesn't effect gameplay, it enhances the viewing experience. There are people who don't care for HD because they feel that it's an unnecessary luxury or they just find standard definition more "charming", not because it gives them headaches or deminishes the quality of the visuals for the sake of a parlor trick.
Also, HD is here to stay. There'll never come a moment when the entertainment industry will say, "You know what, people tired of HD let's go back to SD". Which is why 3D is not an enhancement. If it was people wouldn't get tired of it and go back to watching movies (or playing games) in normal 2D.

As for motion controls. There's only one type of motion control that works and it's called, a mouse.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

The thing that amuses me is the fact the original poster can't get off his precious Pilot Wings. You've mentioned ONE game where you believe the 3D added to the experience and are trying to pass it off as 3D been essential to all games across the spectrum.

Honestly I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. You're thread title is that 3D and motion controls are not gimmicks, but the point you're trying to make is how we're all hypocrites for considering 3D and motion controls to be gimmicks but not high definition. High definition is a gimmick, but the reason people don't consider it to be as such is because it works. There are few games that don't benefit from having better graphics.

So honestly, what point are you trying to make here? Did you really just come here to call us all hypocrites because that is what it is starting to feel like.

 

[Danceofmasks]

The biggest problem with the 3DS is this:
Nintendo says every game has to be perfectly playable without turning on 3D.

So ... by definition, they made it a gimmick.

 

[TelHybrid]

It's the developers' fault. If they stopped making the equivalent of cheap flash games (casual games) and stopped selling them at full price, perhaps they could be taken seriously.

 

[TelHybrid]

The biggest problem with the 3DS is this:
Nintendo says every game has to be perfectly playable without turning on 3D.

So ... by definition, they made it a gimmick.

To be fair I think that's to avoid bumming out people with sight deficiencies who can't see 3D, such as people with one eye.

 

[dogenzakaminion]

Actually, HD does offer gameplay advantages, like a physics engine or dual joysticks. With more pixels on screen you can create more detailed textures and increase drawing distances. Imagine any shooter, where you pick up a rifle and try to hit someone. With less pixels it would be harder to make out where and what the target is, so graphical fidelity can improve games more than just "it looks prettier".

I will agree that 3D and motion controls CAN be more than a gimmick, but it's still a lot on personal preference. I can't watch 3D because the fidelity is so weird it makes all the moving things have fuzzy lines around them, and I sold my Wii for and Xbox because playing call of duty with motion controls sucked. But that is just my opinion on the two.

 

[spartan231490]

I strongly consider them to be gimmicks because they don't add to gameplay. Motion controls don't work correctly half the time, and barely work at all the other half. Even beyond that, Yahtzee's point about increasing the delay between thought and on-screen action is a very real consideration. the button press is quicker and therefore there is less delay and more immersion.

3D could benefit some games for some people I guess. But I never had any problem with platformers or flight sims myself, judging distance in a game is easy for me. And with the headaches and glasses I find 3D to be not just a gimmick, but an outright decrease in value. The 3ds might circumvent these problems, but I doubt we will ever be able to extend it's technology to consoles or computers because of the viewing angle problems.

As for realistic physics and HD graphics, they aren't gimmicks. They aren't revolutionizing gaming, but they help. In any game where distance is involved, RPG's or shooters, HD makes it a lot easier to see if that is an enemy, an ally, or a tree, at much greater distances, and that can really improve gameplay. Realistic physics always make me feel more in-the-game, and help with suspension of disbelief and knowing what to expect.

 

[Baby Tea]

Sorry, but your logic is wrong regarding 3D. Here's why:

For the first paragraph, excerpts of which I've quoted, you see people dismissing it as a "meaningless graphical update" because it is. If it wasn't, people wouldn't be feeling nausea, disorientation etc. It's meaningless to make the audience uncomfortable (my girlfriend does, every time she tries to llok at a 3D image, 3DS or movie or anything). Second, people with vision impairments which reduce the light sensitivity of one eye (like my best friend has) CAN NOT see steroscopic 3D. Another chunk of gamers alienated then....As for the HD graphics, I agree. It's just another gimmick as well, but at least everyone can see it without problem.

This is a moot argument, and I'll explain why:

There are people who get motion sickness with video games, and epileptic seizures as well. On top of those who swear they can't tell the difference between HD and SD, and games that don't display 100% properly (Font size, and other problems) on SD TVs anymore.

Those are chunks of the audience that are currently alienated by video games.

The bottom line is: You can't please everyone.
3D might alienate some people, but so what? HD alienates people too! Those who can't afford an HD TV, those who can't see what the big deal is, those who get seizures, and those who get motion sickness. None of those things will stop either HD or 3D from becoming more prominent.
Other things might stop 3D, but it sure isn't some people's inability to see it. A work around will be made, or they'll just do without. Plain and simple.

HD, on the other hand, is beyond the 'here to stay' point. It's rooted deep.
And that's good, because it's awesome for the rest of us: The vast majority of people.