3D and motion controls aren't gimmicks.

[IvoryTowerGamer]

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.

 

[Falconsgyre]

Correction: 3D and motion controls don't have to be gimmicks.

Most people dismiss 3D as a meaningless graphical upgrade because it's probably going to be used as a meaningless graphical upgrade, regardless of its potential.

 

[Euhan01]

It depends. 3D on its own as is a gimmick, as is waggle control, but if used in the correct way (like the Pilotwings example) it can be used as a proper tool.

 

[Cuddlydemon]

In and of itself they aren't gimmicks, no, but the vast majority of games where either or both show up, they are used as an afterthought and really don't add anything, nor would playing the game without either option subtract anything.

Generally speaking, I view 3D as something I shouldn't expect anything from, so I can be forever pleasantly surprised when it's actually used to enhance the experience. This has thus far only happened in movies, and only when implemented by Pixar.

 

[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

 

[Brotherofwill]

Physics are considered a game changer because they increase your immersion and fun.

Physics make game objects react like real world objects, thus making the overall experience more believable. Most gamers don't realize how important that is. Take enemy deaths for example. People take it for granted that they fall down and turn and lay on objects, but 5-10 years ago that stuff was mind blowing.
I remember playing Trasher, a PS1 skateboarding game, where ragdoll physics determined the damage you took (thus directly enhancing gameplay) and I thought to myself "Man! This needs to be in every game". Now it is. Gameplay isn't just improved by something so literal like using a gravity gun. It's improved by so many little things and game physics are so many little improvements.

So much for that. I agree though that motion controls and 3D aren't gimmicks. They are often not utilized properly, but when they are, it can make the game better.

 

[Netrigan]

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.

Actually, the complaint is more along the lines of it being a graphical downgrade.

Over-all, the issue with both is that neither have managed to prove themselves beyond having potential.

 

[mad825]

The "3D" is not 3D but actually 2D therefore it cannot add nothing new or innovate to game-play. It's a Gimmick and a fad in one pot.

motion controls increases the amount of time to complete an action, an HCI hell. It's not a gimmick but definitely a fad.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I dismiss them because they are used to sell shovelware, and yeah the HD mark was used as the same stupid selling point.

But hey I'm really not the target audience for those sales, I just get someone to laugh at.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

3D has the potential to not be a gimmick. As it's used and sold now, though - yes. Yes, it is a gimmick. I have never watched a 2D movie and thought, "oh my god, it's so flat." I have never played with a controller and thought, "this action is nothing like actually walking."

3D and "motion control" needs a major rebranding, in particular the term "motion controls". Pretty certain pressing the A button is a "motion".

Any advancement that improves immersion isn't a gimmick. Game physics, hi-definition games, colour games. But at the moment, the usage of 3D and motion is "dividing" because it does, in far too many instances, break immersion. Until they have it nailed down how to do "proper" glasses-less 3D, and actual "motion controlled" games (like, full body-suit-esque motion control, or virtual reality), it is just a gimmick, just tassles on a handlebar; ones that, as they stand and are evolving, need to be pushed in a different direction or continue being gaudy tassles.

That's my opinion, anyway; always nice to see how these things are perceived by others!

 

[MasterV]

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.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.Can you honestly say that HD graphics has affected gameplay in even one genre?

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. 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.

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. Miyamoto says that because he wants an excuse to make what he likes, more 3D Mario games. Why no tanuki suit in the 2 2D Mario games that came out this gen Miyamoto? Not saying that I don't like 3D Mario, but why the favouritism? As for the HD graphics, I agree. It's just another gimmick as well, but at least everyone can see it without problem.


As for the second part, it isn't shovelware if it isn't for you or just because it doesn't have ludicrous production values. Is it fun? Do people like it? It's not shovelware (Note that I'm not attacking you, but I don't like this line of thought. I notice that you correctly have the words in quotation marks later on), regardless ofwhat the enlightened industry says. Both physics and motion controls have the potential to be so much more, as you say. It's just a pity the "progressive" industry only utilises the blandest apllications available, isn't it?

 

[zombieeater6000]

seem very gimmicky at the current time maybe in the future they'll be better guess i'll have to wait and see

 

[Laser Priest]

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

 

[Phishfood]

3D has the potential to not be a gimmick. As it's used and sold now, though - yes. Yes, it is a gimmick. I have never watched a 2D movie and thought, "oh my god, it's so flat." I have never played with a controller and thought, "this action is nothing like actually walking."

3D and "motion control" needs a major rebranding, in particular the term "motion controls". Pretty certain pressing the A button is a "motion".

Any advancement that improves immersion isn't a gimmick. Game physics, hi-definition games, colour games. But at the moment, the usage of 3D and motion is "dividing" because it does, in far too many instances, break immersion. Until they have it nailed down how to do "proper" glasses-less 3D, and actual "motion controlled" games (like, full body-suit-esque motion control, or virtual reality), it is just a gimmick, just tassles on a handlebar; ones that, as they stand and are evolving, need to be pushed in a different direction or continue being gaudy tassles.

That's my opinion, anyway; always nice to see how these things are perceived by others!

Basically this. Motion controls and 3d are gimmicks AS THEY ARE. Wii bowling is in the "uncanny valley" of actions. Its sort of like bowling but really not. For a start, I bowl with a nice heavy ball not a tiny bit of plastic. 3d isn't actual 3d it just kind of looks a bit 3d.

Now, give me a game that projects a 3d hologram into the room and the controller feels like a bowling ball until you let go when it ceases weighing anything and I will say you are on to something.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

Because 3D doesn't really add much to the experience of gaming. Better graphics make a game look more realistic and can help with the immersion, but 3D technology pretty much always breaks the immersion when you play. As for motion controls... they're a gimmick because it appeals to a very specific type of games. Most games don't benefit from motion controls. Whenever I play the Wii I find myself switching to a gamecube controller or going "god! I wish this game had gamecube controller support".

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

In and of itself they aren't gimmicks, no, but the vast majority of games where either or both show up, they are used as an afterthought and really don't add anything, nor would playing the game without either option subtract anything.

Generally speaking, I view 3D as something I shouldn't expect anything from, so I can be forever pleasantly surprised when it's actually used to enhance the experience. This has thus far only happened in movies, and only when implemented by Pixar.

Correction: 3D and motion controls don't have to be gimmicks.

Most people dismiss 3D as a meaningless graphical upgrade because it's probably going to be used as a meaningless graphical upgrade, regardless of its potential.

And how is this any different from the current use of HD/physics? That's part of my point here. It's hypocritical to call the 3DS/Wii gimmick consoles when the same argument can be leveled at some of the Xbox/PS3's main features.

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 a gimmick? It affects gameplay because you can now accurately perceive depth in flight/platformer games.

HD just ruins framerates for a graphical gimmick. =)

Seriously though, imagine a game like pilotwings had photo-realistic HD graphics instead of 3D. It would actually take much more away from the gameplay than it adds to it.

Physics are considered a game changer because they increase your immersion and fun.

Physics make game objects react like real world objects, thus making the overall experience more believable. Most gamers don't realize how important that is. Take enemy deaths for example. People take it for granted that they fall down and turn and lay on objects, but 5-10 years ago that stuff was mind blowing.
I remember playing Trasher, a PS1 skateboarding game, where ragdoll physics determined the damage you took (thus directly enhancing gameplay) and I thought to myself "Man! This needs to be in every game". Now it is. Gameplay isn't just improved by something so literal like using a gravity gun. It's improved by so many little things and game physics are so many little improvements.

So much for that. I agree though that motion controls and 3D aren't gimmicks. They are often not utilized properly, but when they are, it can make the game better.

Actually, I agree with your evaluation of physics in games. My point is that you see them being used in the way you describe above just about as often as you see good motion controls.

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.

Actually, the complaint is more along the lines of it being a graphical downgrade.

Over-all, the issue with both is that neither have managed to prove themselves beyond having potential.

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.

The "3D" is not 3D but actually 2D therefore it cannot add nothing new or innovate to game-play. It's a Gimmick and a fad in one pot.

motion controls increases the amount of time to complete an action, an HCI hell. It's not a gimmick but definitely a fad.

3D adds greater depth perception. How does this not add anything to flight games or platformers?

3D has the potential to not be a gimmick. As it's used and sold now, though - yes. Yes, it is a gimmick. I have never watched a 2D movie and thought, "oh my god, it's so flat." I have never played with a controller and thought, "this action is nothing like actually walking."

3D and "motion control" needs a major rebranding, in particular the term "motion controls". Pretty certain pressing the A button is a "motion".

Any advancement that improves immersion isn't a gimmick. Game physics, hi-definition games, colour games. But at the moment, the usage of 3D and motion is "dividing" because it does, in far too many instances, break immersion. Until they have it nailed down how to do "proper" glasses-less 3D, and actual "motion controlled" games (like, full body-suit-esque motion control, or virtual reality), it is just a gimmick, just tassles on a handlebar; ones that, as they stand and are evolving, need to be pushed in a different direction or continue being gaudy tassles.

That's my opinion, anyway; always nice to see how these things are perceived by others!

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.

of course your agruement of all the boring shooter clones is true! but that's not the physics programs' fault, the physics engines can do all manour of new and exciting things, it's just that few are interested in exploring them yet, whip the developers not the engines.

Actually I would argue the same about motion controls. I know you think they've hit a wall, but I think it's more an issue of finding out how to properly use it. Right now the problem is that some developers are trying to add motion controls to everything, even when it's detrimental to the experience. That would be like if physics programers did the same with their engines. There's a reason that not everything in games are physically interactive, and motion controlled games would do well to learn the same restraint (although they are much better now than a few years ago).

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.

I don't know that you can use that argument without also dismissing things like tradtional controllers (I know many people that can't use traditional controllers due to disabilities, but can use motion controls), HD (people with certain vision problems can't perceive the difference under normal viewing conditions), and even sound.

Also, I think implementation is a part of it as well. My 3DS has never bothered my eyes, but I get headaches when I watch 3D in movies.

Miyamoto says that because he wants an excuse to make what he likes, more 3D Mario games. Why no tanuki suit in the 2 2D Mario games that came out this gen Miyamoto? Not saying that I don't like 3D Mario, but why the favouritism? As for the HD graphics, I agree. It's just another gimmick as well, but at least everyone can see it without problem.

They actually play tested a tanuki suit in Mario 64, but it didn't work out due to problems with depth perception. You're right that he could've included it in other 2D games, but it still wouldn't be a new gameplay mechanic. It Mario 3DS it will obviously play differently from how we originally experienced the power-up.

As for the second part, it isn't shovelware if it isn't for you or just because it doesn't have ludicrous production values. Is it fun? Do people like it? It's not shovelware (Note that I'm not attacking you, but I don't like this line of thought. I notice that you correctly have the words in quotation marks later on), regardless ofwhat the enlightened industry says. Both physics and motion controls have the potential to be so much more, as you say. It's just a pity the "progressive" industry only utilises the blandest apllications available, isn't it?

I actually agree with you. I find it frustrating how often people use shovelware as something synonymous to "casual product that I don't like".

HD has affected all genres in a positive way. I remember getting pissed off when I couldn't identify/match one symbol with another in certain puzzles, or couldn't read certain text in menus. Now it's all clear as day. I don't think we need to go far beyond HD as far as graphics go, but the upgrade was definitely helpful.

That's not an improvement; that's covering bad design. The above problems can easily be solved without HD by simply increasing the font size. The upgrade to HD is quite unnecessary.

As Yahtzee says, however, 3D and motion controls are counter-intuitive to the way gaming has evolved. We want our gaming experience to be comfortable, smooth, and responsive. Wearing glasses or needing to keep your head/eyes absolutely still are not comfortable. And motion controls are just a less accurate/less responsive way of doing what we were able to accomplish just fine with a gamepad/mouse. That's why they'll never be anything other than gimmicks.

Many people find motion controls more comfortable, smooth, and responsive than traditional controls.

I found my 3D flight sim to be much smoother and more responsive than 2D ones.

By Yahtzee's own logic motion controls and 3D are superior.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

I find both to be gimmicks because, while some people do enjoy them, I don't see them as the next big thing in gaming. Sure, the Wii has sold massively but I don't ever forsee a scenario where motion controls and 3D technology take over gaming as we know it (at least in this generation). Technically though, anything new introduced that isn't widely accepted is considered to be a gimmick. I'm sure there were people going "oh this internet thing is just a gimmick!".

Also, I don't like 3D technology because, well, it's been around since like forever and everyone is trying to market it as the next innovation for movies. So basically, yes both of them are gimmicks as they are now. Either people will work out how to use them properly or they'll eventually disappear into the night.

I'm struggling to see your logic here. The Wii and 3Ds cannot be seen as gimmicks because you believe something else to be a gimmick. It's called personal opinion. If you think the Wii and 3Ds are the greatest things ever, great, but don't try to come on here telling us we should feel the same way...

Oh and you mention ONE instance where 3D technology MIGHT be benefical to ONE power up in ONE game and declare that 3D technology is beneficial to the ENTIRE platformer genre? Right...

In short: they're gimmicks because they're new. People are still working out how to use them properly, and we might reach a point where they're accepted into mainstream gaming (not too sure about motion controls because I believe they've gone as far as they can go). I don't believe the 3Ds is the perfect way to use 3Ds and therefore it is a gimmick. It'll be interesting to see how it goes, but for 3D technology to really work they have to figure out a way to fix the problems. Hell, I'm sure when Rock Band was first announced some people looked at the Guitar Controller and thought "that's a gimmick!"

 

[Frenger]

The only good thing about 3d would be that I would play less games. Five minutes of play and a headsplitting migraine for the rest of the evening. So I pray it stay as a gimmick.

And motion controls fall into redundant ways to do things in front of the TV. But it has its uses. I for one enjoy Wii sports.