3D and motion controls aren't gimmicks.

[Fayathon]

I have no depth perception. 3D is useless to me.

And here I was thinking I was the only one on this site that had this particular problem.

3D is worthless in my opinion because it does not work for me, but I do see some potential for motion controls, after all, I've had tons of fun with the controls for the Metroid Prime collection on my Wii.

 

[MadCapMunchkin]

I have no depth perception. 3D is useless to me. And motion control just genuinely isn't fun.

Oh, so you're the one who borrowed my brain! I'd like it back, please.

No, but seriously, that's my problems with both. The Wii got boring to me after about two minutes and I have violently refused to get Kinect. It will not happen.

 

[jpoon]

I'm definitely in the Motion Controls = Shitty gimmick crowd. Move was a massive waste of money for me.

 

[2xDouble]

ugh...

gim·mick
[gim-ik]
noun

1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.

2. a concealed, usually devious aspect or feature of something, as a plan or deal: An offer that good must have a gimmick in it somewhere.

3. a hidden mechanical device by which a magician works a trick or a gambler controls a game of chance.

Motion controls and 3D are ingenious, novel, and designed to attract attention and increase appeal. They are gimmicks. Deal with it.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

The thing is both 3D and Motion Controls have been tried before and failed. They're not doing much better here (I've noticed most Wii games seem to force in the motion controls and would actually play better with a regular controller). Both of them are old technology the industry is trying to pass off as something new. Sure you get a few titles where motion controls work (sort of) but it's not the next evolution in gaming.

But hey, they're mostly just an experiment to see where the next evolution in gaming is going to come from. Both might be around for a while but I reckon they'll fade away soon enough. As for the 3Ds, as Yatzee said the console will succeed or fail based on the games made for it. No one is going to go "OMG THESE GAMES ARE TERRIBLE BUT THE 3D IS SO AWESOME IT MAKES IT WORTH PLAYING". Soon enough someone will come out with the "next big thing" and people will forget about motion controls and 3D. I mean the Wii is big and I've seen a few ads for the Kinect, but I can honestly say I have not seen one piece of advertising promoting the Playstation Move.

Basically, just because something is a gimmick doesn't mean it is automatically bad; the word just seems to carry a negative connotation.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

ugh...

gim·mick
[gim-ik]
noun

1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.

2. a concealed, usually devious aspect or feature of something, as a plan or deal: An offer that good must have a gimmick in it somewhere.

3. a hidden mechanical device by which a magician works a trick or a gambler controls a game of chance.

Motion controls and 3D are ingenious, novel, and designed to attract attention and increase appeal. They are gimmicks. Deal with it.

The thread title is misleading. His entire argument has been since we call 3D and motion controls gimmicks, but not HD, we are all hypocrites...

 

[tahrey]

That's not affecting gameplay though. Motion controls can affect gameplay speed, especially in shooters.

True, and I expect one reason for their adoption is that light guns are no longer a workable option in the LCD-based world.

3D has less applications, but can be used to judge depth, which could also affect gameplay (more so than HD at least).

I think I already covered this, but have many developers actually used this feature? I've played enough 3D-games-on-2D-screens where depth perception wasn't any kind of issue though - there's enough other cues. One-eyed people can still pass driving tests...

Making things look nice and clear doesn't really affect the gameplay.

I challenge you to play an FPS in VGA mode, or with glasses with vaseline smeared on, and stand by that quote. It may only be a matter of degree, but it can still make a difference. EG being able to tell a friend from a foe on a higher rez screen when they'd just be a single pixel smear on a lower rez one. It also improves the apparent detail which can also be important for immersiveness... also one of the reasons AA modes improve the visual quality so much. The real world is not pixelated.

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.

Well, you're not THAT far away from HDMI with RGB Scart (which I assume also means PAL or SECAM), particularly if it's in 720p mode and/or being played on a WXGA-spec "HD Ready" TV.

But if you take it from the American perspective, where a lot of them until now may well have been viewing their games through an NTSC composite cable, which is a seriously piss-poor way of transmitting visual data (ever wonder why Final Fantasy games have such chunky text? because of that...), upgrading to 1080p would be a gameplay revolution just in terms of being better able to see what you're aiming at and reading more than tweet's-worth of instruction text at once.

Oh, and it may just be that you and your teammates are THAT much better than the others, is all, despite you only getting an effective 360x288 screen rez each.

 

[yoshiru]

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).

You're absolutely right: They aren't more gimmicky than HD graphics or realistic physics. But guess what? They aren't any LESS gimmicky, either.

The problem Yahtzee (and sane people) have with 3D and motion controls is that they're being marketed as the biggest new upgrade that everyone needs to have, and they're not. If having every movie in 3D is going to make my movie-going experience go from 8.50 to 14.50(USD), than I would rather not have every movie in 3D, thanks. Just big screen movies make some people sick, adding 3D to that will make even MORE people sick, 3D just alienates the audience, it doesn't make it grow.

As far as comparing it to physics or HD: HD doesn't matter either, my computers have had screens that are "HD" for years, HD was just a way of marketing TVs to consumers so the industry would be able to raise the standard resolution (this is a problem I have with TVs and consoles: when the industry feels they need higher quality to achieve what they want, they have to get the entire consumer base to upgrade their hardware. Whereas with the computer industry, the industry upgrades their material as they see fit, and the consumers do the same. The changes are much more dynamic and less forced upon you).

Realistic Physics? They upgrade a game as much as they can, but I've never pretended it suddenly made games perfect, no more than DX11 Tessellation will "suddenly make games perfect".

 

[Laser Priest]

I have no depth perception. 3D is useless to me. And motion control just genuinely isn't fun.

I hate to sound insensitive, but if you have a disability that prevents you from experiencing something are you really the best person to judge whether or not it is a gimmick? You certainly have a very good reason to dislike it, but that's not quite the same thing.

I'm not saying that makes it a gimmick. I'm saying that it really fucking sucks for me.

 

[Netrigan]

Again, how is this any different from the "potential" we were promised with physics? I remember back when HL2 came out people were saying it would revolutionize games: "Fully physically interactive environments will revolutionize how action games are played! It'll add new strategies, multiple solutions, and deeper gameplay!" So far all we've seen are "force pull/push" powers and maybe a few very linear "destroy this environment object" puzzles (which incidentally was possible back in the quake era, albeit with less flair).

And I have yet to see a game where HD graphics affect the gameplay in any way.

Physics and HD are things that have (more or less) naturally been added to games over the years. We've been chasing after better graphics since video games debuted and more accurate modeling of physics is appreciated by a lot of gamers. Neither changes things in any major way, but they mostly flow from what everyone is already doing.

HD was probably the biggest hurdle, because it relied on a whole lot of factors, such as HD TVs becoming cheap enough, blu-ray players becoming fairly cheap (along with blu-ray discs), TV producers filming in HD, and cable providers broadcasting in HD. Video games were a part of this process (with both MS & Sony attempting to use their console to cement the HD standard they had invested in), all to sell a product to an audience that when given the choice between VHS, Betamax, and video-disc, chose the worst picture quality because it offered the cheapest recording options.

And we still haven't seen the vast majority of people switch over. We've got years to go, as a lot of people probably won't bother upgrading until their existing equipment breaks down.

So Sony wants to sell us 3D TVs when very little 3D content exists... and it's still incredibly expensive (more so if you want more than one pair of glasses), and while it might be cool to play a 3D game in real 3D, few are going to be willing to shell out the bucks to do so. Nintendo's solution is cheaper, but already people are complaining about comfort and battery life when playing in 3D. Are people going to shell out more money for a product less convenient than the one they own to play games that can be played in 2D?

As for motion controllers, we really haven't seen the Motion Controller Killer App. While that dance game is pretty big success, for the Kinect to become a Killer App, we have to see an easily copied trend with enduring popularity. Seeing how Guitar Hero spectacularly crashed recently, a new rhythm game is probably not it. And Nintendo, despite having the best selling console of this generation (and one of the better selling consoles in history) talks of the Wii almost as if it was a failure. The motion control games just haven't proven to be a dependable source of hit games.

So we keep on doing what we always do. Make games that look a bit better than the last ones, slipping in a few new features in the hope of keeping it fresh enough to sell.

 

[Nexus4]

Physics are a gimmick? Dr Freeman would like to have a word with you about that!

 

[mjc0961]

3D and motion controls aren't gimmicks. At least, they aren't any more gimmicky than HD graphics or realistic physics.

I still don't see why so many people believe this nonsense. Being able to see things more clearly and having a longer draw distance has certainly added a hell of a lot more to games than making everything look like paper cut-out bullshit ever will. In fact, it's gotten to the point for me where I feel safe in disregarding everything else someone has to say on the subject after they pull this useless argument out, because it shows how little understand they have of what HD quality graphics have done for gaming. And as an added bonus, you said that better physics don't makes games better either, so yeah, I'm quite content to assume that you really have no idea what you're talking about here.

 

[Plurralbles]

the thing is: and yahtzee fucking said this, is that ISN'T an upgrade. It's moving linearly while HD graphics and processing power clearly affected gameplay and made the game more immersive and changed what agame ultimately could BE.

You're dismissing shit for no reason.

Guy above me hit the nail on the head very hard and I'm pretty sure it blasted through the earth and is no in space somewhere....

 

[Eternal_Lament]

Alright, I'll answer both your queestions as to why both 3D and motion controls as they stand now are gimmicks.

3D: The most common argument I seein favour of 3D (or at least in defending it) is that its stupid to say that it has no purpose other than graphical improvement when HD graphics are something worth acheiving in games "Yet it only improves graphics". Heres the issue with that argument though. HD isn't simply some feature to make something look better for the sake of making a quick buck, it is rather a response to the increase in technological advancement. As years go on, the technology behind TVs increases, with picture quality being improved with each new addition. The problem with this though is that if we simply keep game engines at a bare minimum or old bones design, the quality of the game isn't going to look good. In some cases the graphics in the game would actually be worse on a better and newer TV as opposed to an older and less superior one. As such, HD graphics aren't simply just trying to make a game look "puurrty", it is trying to make the game look at least bearable. Further, any open-world game would not exist today if the advancement in graphics were not around, otherwise almost nothing would be renderable. Do you remember how games like the original Silent Hill series would have dense fog or total blackness in front of the player most of the time either in the open world town or open buildings? Theres a reason for that, and it isnt just an artistic one. It is because at the time it would've been impossible to actually render what the town would look like in all directions. Hell, look at the GTA series. Did you ever wonder why the first two games were top-down and the rest afterwards in 3D enviornments? Part of it was because they simply couldn't do the open world thing due to the graphical limitatins at the time. 3D however, unlike HD, does not have that purpose. 3D for the most part is not reactionary to the advancement of technology, it is rather a feature to make something look good for a quick buck. Think of it like this. While HD has proven that certain games don't work without it, 3D has yet to do that. This isn't a matter though of it being too young. Both Sony and Nintendo have gone on record on saying that their 3D technology is not a mandatory thing, in that all games released either for the 3DS or games released with 3D compatibility can still play just the same with or without the 3D. What this means is that neither company is going full ahead with the 3D enough to show how certain games can only exist with the 3D. They aren't trying to make games that utilize 3D as part of the gameplay and make it a necessary feature, they are making the same games they always have that just happens to have a 3D feature. Thats why its a gimmick, because it adds little in the way in innovation to prove that certain games can benefit from its existence. Perhaps someday someone will come up with a good concept that would only work with 3D, but untill that time and untill a company shows full dedication in making the 3D an integral part of gameplay 3d will be nothing more than an add-on that does little to add to the experience, thus a gimmick

Motion Controls: Whether or not you think the Wii has good games or if the Kinect and Move work, there is one thing that is undeniable: all three (all four if we include Sixaxis) have failed in proving that some games out there can only work with motion controls. Much like 3D, the reason motion controls are seen as a gimmick is because there has not been a game that proved that it couldn't exist without motion controls. Much like 3D, the reason why motion controls can but don't work is because game makers aren't trying to make games that would only work with the feature but are rather trying to make games that have been made before but have the feature of motion controls. One could argue that analog sticks at the time may have had the same reaction, but consider this: analog sticks were meant for one type of game, games that took place in 3D environments as opposed to 2D ones. Analog sticks and 2D games often didn't work together all the time, so game makers didn't make 2D games that used analog sticks, they made 3D games that functioned properly only once analog sticks were introduced.

Thats basically the crux of the whole gimmick thing. Both 3D and motion controls have yet to prove that they are integral for the existance of certain games, mostly because these features aren't trying to show a different set of games that would normally be unplayable without these features, they are trying to show how current games can work with these features, which brings he name gimmick: something that one can use but doesn't need to in order to still enjoy the game.

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

.....It's adds nothing to the gameplay. If you think that it adds better graphical quality, then that's your opinion.

Any gameplay that needs you to accurately judge distances (flight sims/platformers) is obviously affected by the addition of a 3rd dimension. There's nothing subjective about it.

HD IS a gameplay changer, as LA Noire is brilliant showing. It also helped drive story and character-driven games by utilising more complex and less cartoonish facial expressions on characters, a level of emotional interaction with the player not before achieved because it was able to tap in to our instinctual emotions not simply our intellectual ones (ie characterisation through text).

From what I understand, the characters in LA Noire are simply using better facial animations. They would be equally visible in standard resolutions.

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.

The problem is that the second point on that sales graph is when the earthquake hit here in Japan. They've had news stories here showing that all electronic sales look like that now.

If you can find a similar graph for Western sales data I'd be convinced though.

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.

I agree, but most games nowadays have the option to use a traditional controller. Similarly, the 3DS has the ability to tone down/turn off the 3D effect too.

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.

Never succeeded? I can think of plenty of successful motion-controlled games. 3D is just starting to be used on a wide scale so it's difficult to tell, but like I mentioned in the OP, the potential is definitely there for certain genres.

Again, just what is the defining difference between a gimmick and an innovation? Is it impact on gameplay? If so both 3D and motion controls pass. Is it financial success and industry adoption? If so then motion controls definitely pass, as every major console (including the unreleased ones) now has some form of motion detection. 3D is supported by two of the 3 major hardware companies.

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.

This just simply isn't true. If it were, then people without depth perception wouldn't be at a disadvantage when playing sports/performing jobs that require you to accurately judge distances.

 

[Aurgelmir]

Never succeeded? I can think of plenty of successful motion-controlled games. 3D is just starting to be used on a wide scale so it's difficult to tell, but like I mentioned in the OP, the potential is definitely there for certain genres.

Again, just what is the defining difference between a gimmick and an innovation? Is it impact on gameplay? If so both 3D and motion controls pass. Is it financial success and industry adoption? If so then motion controls definitely pass, as every major console (including the unreleased ones) now has some form of motion detection. 3D is supported by two of the 3 major hardware companies.

The difference between innovation and gimmicks is simple can be summed up by one little word: "Needs"

Market needs is what drives a success or failure, if the market feels the need for a device it will survive, but if the market never had any need for that product it will go down in history as a gimmick.

You seem to think motion controllers is something vastly new, and yet there has been multiple attempts on this before. The Power Glove is the best example. Same with 3D it came it flopped it went away.

The only reason it MIGHT win through this time is that billions of dollars is being put into it, and the quality is better.

But the facts are still that a lot of people do not feel a need for 3D or motion controllers, in fact they feel both hampers their enjoyment of the medium.

Forcing a Need on the population hardly ever works out in the end.

PS: Sales figures isn't all, because the Wii sold a lot of hardware but very little games per machine.

 

[MasterV]

The problem is that the second point on that sales graph is when the earthquake hit here in Japan. They've had news stories here showing that all electronic sales look like that now.

If you can find a similar graph for Western sales data I'd be convinced though.

Easy. Take a look at the hardware sales on the upper right side of the page and note the weekly difference.

http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly.php

(Silly me, forgot the link)

3DS weekly change -21%
PSP weekly change +25%

This is the same period, worldwide. I do believe that people choose the PSP over the 3DS after it has been in the market for 2 months now. Sure, the variety of games is greater on the PSP, since the 3DS is new, but the customer isn't stupid. He can see where Nintendo is going in the future, that is, more 3D. Specifically, more REMAKES in 3D.

Those in the know, who look around the internet see Miyamoto dispensing pearls like "A Link to the Past remake in 3D would be very interesing to me". Oh really? How about a new game? Of all the games already out or soon to be released, nearly 80% is a remake or re-release of some sort with 3D added on top.

The difference between innovation and gimmicks is simple can be summed up by one little word: "Needs"

Market needs is what drives a success or failure, if the market feels the need for a device it will survive, but if the market never had any need for that product it will go down in history as a gimmick.

The only reason it MIGHT win through this time is that billions of dollars is being put into it, and the quality is better.

But the facts are still that a lot of people do not feel a need for 3D or motion controllers, in fact they feel both hampers their enjoyment of the medium.

Forcing a Need on the population hardly ever works out in the end.

PS: Sales figures isn't all, because the Wii sold a lot of hardware but very little games per machine.

I find it funny you know, because the first two paragraphs I've quoted can very well aply to HD as well. Don't you find it strange that the HD twins couldn't commercially surpass the "shitty, underpowered Wii" not once during this generation until AFTER it stopped getting games due to Nintendo's obsession with 3D?

Don't you find it strange that both Microsoft AND Sony were losing loads and loads of money on every console sold by trying to shove HD down people's throats?

Don't you find it strange that more and more game studios are closing down nearly every month this generation, even though they produce state-of-the-art HD pieces of art?

Have a look at THQ's revenue analysis

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/85930/thq-loses-1361m-in-the-year-to-march-2011-udraw-to-x360ps3/

and tell me, on which console did they actually make a profit? (Hint:Not on any HD platform) And this is THQ, a big software publisher, with money to burn. Others in their position would've long gone under. Even EA Sports is considering charging fees for their annual franchises. And the industry is going forward with HD? AHAHAHA!

Sure, a lot of people may not feel the need for motion controls (namely, PC gamers and those on the dumbed down PCs called HD twins), but a whole lot more of them DO and really enjoy it. Otherwise the Wii should be long dead and buried, especially with no games coming out for 6 months.

You MAY be right about the console/game ratio on the Wii, but what can we do? When companies treat us like third grade citizens, we don't buy their crappy games. Look at Dead Space Extraction, Soul Calibur Legends, TWO Lightgun Resident Evils, the list goes on. Now, I'm not saying I didn't enjoy some of these, but I'd much rather have a full-blown game than a cheap knockoff, which is why I bought the PC versions. And don't tell me it's about hardware constraints. They released Dead Space on the iPad ferchrsissakes.

 

[badgersprite]

3D is a gimmick as it stands, and I say this as someone who has a 3D TV and very much enjoys it. But, really, as long as we live in a world where most people don't have 3DTVs and not all people have motion controls, how can we say these things are anything other than gimmicks?

Why did my Dad buy Wipeout HD? Because it's in 3D. Why do I play GT5? Because it's 3D. Why did my Dad buy a 3D TV? Because he wanted the 3D and thought it would be cool.

As long as we're in it for the 3D and not the game, it's a gimmick. Likewise with something like the Kinect. Are you in it for the motion control, ie to use the Kinect, or are you in it for the game? If you're in it for the experience of waving your arms around and having it show up on screen, then it's a gimmick.

There's nothing wrong with that. Whatever someone thinks is fun is great. More power to them. I'm going to go play something in 3D right now, as a matter of fact. But, yeah, to put it bluntly, if the additional feature is the attraction and not the content itself, that's what makes it a gimmick.

 

[mad825]

.....It's adds nothing to the gameplay. If you think that it adds better graphical quality, then that's your opinion.

Any gameplay that needs you to accurately judge distances (flight sims/platformers) is obviously affected by the addition of a 3rd dimension. There's nothing subjective about it.

em, graphical quality is subjective?

If you cannot judge distances without the pedsuo-3D then there's a major fault with the graphical design. Both 2D and 3D environment have their drawbacks which cannot be solved by the use of stereoscopic graphics, only Volumetric display would be able due to it's proper use(display) of 3 Dimensions in the real world.....Holographic principle not withstanding >.>

You are really making alot of assumptions which cannot be justified.