Maybe, but I don't see how that's relevant to the argument. You can say that the graphics in Crysis aren't a feature, but you definitely can't call them a gimmick. And besides that, if HD is a gimmick or not does absolutely nothing for that statement in the thread title.
Fair enough. My point was that I find it ironic when the same people who tout HD complain about 3D being a gimmick because it "doesn't affect gameplay", but yes, I suppose you are right.
poiumty said:
No. Go read the definition of the term "norm". Standard controllers were the norm ever since consoles were invented. They have nothing to depart from. They have always been there. Motion controls are the new thing (if you disregard several failed attempts in the past), not the other way around. I don't know who those "many people" are but I very much doubt they're more than a niche market. Again, this argument does nothing to cover the fact that motion controls are simplistic. After decades of standard controllers having more and more buttons to permit for more complex gameplay, it's THIS devolution that will become the standard? How can you possibly believe that.
Just because controllers are the norm doesn't mean they aren't awkward for some people. There are still some people that refuse to play FPS games with anything but a mouse and keyboard. That doesn't mean that controllers are a gimmick.
aquaman839 said:
They may not be gimmicks but they are being used as gimmick. Also on the gimmick scale they are way more gimmicky than HD graphics and real physics, because those were up grades to the gaming tech that everyone can use. 3d Tvs are very expensive and for the most part the motion control for the PS3 and Xbox360 are gimmicks, because they were cash in add ons. I really don't think you know what a gimmick is.
What is a gimmick then?
Flare Phoenix said:
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.
My main purpose was to point out the irony in how quick some people are to call Nintendo's consoles gimmicks when many of the other consoles' hyped features don't really affect gameplay either. I think people have a tendency to label anything they don't like a "gimmick" without thinking whether or not it actually has a practical gameplay use.
For example, let's imagine that someone who only played games like Wii Fit and Pilotwings called HD and next-gen physics gimmicks. After all, how could either of those features improve the gameplay of Wii Fit? Obviously motion controls and 3D are where it's at because those are the things that affect the games he likes.
People would label him crazy of course, but I don't think people would realize how much they actually share in common with him. For the record, I actually do believe that HD and physics can affect gameplay, but when you look at the industry as a whole (IE not just AAA core games) their impact is much smaller than you'd think. There are many people out there for whom HD is just as superfluous as 3D is.
Danceofmasks said:
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.
So does the fact that PC games are made to be playable at low resolutions say the same for HD?
dogenzakaminion said:
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.
Actually I agree.
I guess my whole point of this thread is not so much that 3D is great and HD is lame, it's that neither one is inherently more "gimmicky" than the other. They each have their place, although your personal preferences might cause you to prefer one over the other.
ninjastovall0 said:
They are used as gimmicks therefore they are gimmicks.
They dont have to be but i doubt motion controls are gonna be big next gen and 3d is just an add on.
And aren't HD and physics gimmicks when they are used solely for eye candy?
2xDouble said:
ugh...
dictionary.com said:
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.
I'm more objecting to the pejorative use of the term, IE "a useless extra".
Also, wouldn't HD and physics still fit the dictionary.com definition? Why don't people call those things gimmicks?
Flare Phoenix said:
Basically, just because something is a gimmick doesn't mean it is automatically bad; the word just seems to carry a negative connotation.
I agree with this, actually. My OP was more meant for those who use it negatively.
tahrey said:
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...
Yet people must pass a depth perception test to become a military pilot.
yoshiru said:
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.
Actually, I agree. I just focused on the other side of it to emphasize my point that 3D/motion controls aren't as gimmicky as people believe.
Necromancer Jim said:
I'm not saying that makes it a gimmick. I'm saying that it really fucking sucks for me.
Can't disagree with that. Hey, at least you'd get twice as much battery time with your 3DS =)
Netrigan said:
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.
I thought most people considered Wii Fit to be the motion-controller killer app?
And HD isn't exactly a dependable source of hit games either, especially if you look at how much more they are to develop.
Otherwise I pretty much agree.
Nexus4 said:
Physics are a gimmick? Dr Freeman would like to have a word with you about that!
Man, if every game used physics as well as HL2 I would not have used that as an example in my post. =)
mjc0961 said:
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.
Man. Sometimes I feel the same way about people that dismiss 3D/motion controls. =)
Honestly though, how often is pixel to pixel accuracy actually necessary in today's games? Most shooters (where it seems like it's be the most beneficial) have realistic bullet spread, so any extra accuracy is pretty moot. Unless you happen to be Quake 3 railgun fanatic, I don't really see it being a defining issue.
Plurralbles said:
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....
And yet people still dismiss the practical applications of 3D and motion controls.
Eternal_Lament said:
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.
So, games should be in HD now because we have HD TVs? Does that mean that once 3D TV become more common we should have 3D games?
Eternal_Lament said:
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.
What games don't work without HD? I have a standard definition TV, and I have yet to see a game where my gameplay has been affected by the lack of resolution.
Eternal_Lament said:
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.
So since PC developers include the option to play their games at lower resolutions, does that make HD a gimmick?
Eternal_Lament said:
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.
Wii Fit? Any of those dancing games?
Sounds like it's not so undeniable after all.
Eternal_Lament said:
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.
3D games functioned quite well with a mouse and keyboard.
Eternal_Lament said:
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.
The above statement still applies to the use of HD and advanced physics in most games. I still don't see why motion controls/3D are all that different, especially given the other points I made above.
Aurgelmir said:
The difference between innovation and gimmicks is simple can be summed up by one little word: "Needs"
Fair enough. Very few games need HD or advanced physics, why aren't those also considered gimmicks?
MasterV said:
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.
Ah, good point.
Also, I agree with you that I'm pretty disappointed with the "remakes" direction that Nintendo seems to be taking with this. There are quite a few games in development that actually claim to use the added benefit of depth perception in gameplay (new Kingdom Hearts, Mario 3DS, some ghost hunter arg whose name escapes me), you don't really see much marketing for these titles.
mad825 said:
em, graphical quality is subjective?
I agree, but not when the addition of an extra graphical feature has an impact on gameplay. IE, the different between color/monochrome graphics.
mad825 said:
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.
You're right that only a volumetric display would provide "true 3d", but that doesn't mean that stereoscopic graphics can't provide extra information about depth. I've read quite a few articles about how modern 3D works, too, and I've seen nothing to the effect of what you are suggesting.
I am prepared to accept that I'm making a faulty assumption here, but first you'll have to justify your own claims.
Flare Phoenix said:
They don't fit into every game genre. You notice how the original poster cannot get off of his precious Pilot Wings? It's because he cannot come up with any other game where 3D has been beneficial to the experience. Sure, he keeps mentioning platformers but he has zero proof that 3D technology will actually make them better to play. It's going to do jack-all for 2D side-scrollers for one thing...
Seriously, this is starting to get a bit humorous. Everyone is presenting well reasoned arguments and all the original poster is doing is blocking his ears and going "lalalalalalalalalalalalalala".
Again, I feel the same way you do =)
There are other 3D games that seem like they'd benefit from the extra depth perception, but I haven't played them personally so I didn't think I should comment on them. Most of the games that actively claim to take advantage of 3D (as a gamplay mechanic) aren't coming out for 6 months still anyway. It makes sense too, when you consider that before the 3DS you really couldn't guarantee that your player would even have 3D hardware).
And I agree with you about 2D sidescrollers... unless... someone were to make a first person sidescroller! =)
MasterV said:
I'm against self-destructive industry decisions. Motion controls do have their application, when said application is done correctly and not shoehorned into every gmame just because it "must". At the start Nintendo knew this and embraced it, which is why they advertised not only the motion controls, but the ability to plug in different controllers or even hold the wiimote sideways as well.
Totally agree with the above, which is partly why I have a problem with people that say 3D/motion controls/whatever will be a gimmick until we see a game that "needs" 3D/motion controls/whatever.
