If 2nd gen Dpad = Fighters & 2nd gen twin analog = FPS ,what will 2nd gen 6DoF = ?

[onQ]

One of the problems I find with orientation sensors is the fact that your hands cant be 100% stable. So a game like a flight seem needs to have some dead zones in place so that an accidental tiny tilt/motion does not register as an input. By doing that on the other hand the sense of sharp response is eliminated which is one of the great things that we appreciate with d-pads and dual stick
.
It worked kind of nice with some first person shooters on the PS3 but at the same time it required the player to be more alert with the controller's position. Some games worked great some others didnt because the developer didnt oprimize very well the motion inputs.

But I must say there is a rail shooter on the PS4 which I forgot the name off which plays tremendously well with the DS4's motion controls. The thing is though these arent the kind of games that can become very very popular. They limit freedom.

Perfect for these genres, to me, is defined by a flightstick. Compared to that, I think the next best control method would be best described as adequate.



That's a big issue with all forms of motion controls.



And this is another one.

I'd also add that the lack of resistance to movement is a key problem with motion controls. It takes a bit of effort to move a stick (thumb or joy), turn a wheel or push a button. The complete lack of this resistance feedback is one of the things that makes even the most precise motion controls seem imprecise.

When using a gyroscope & accelerometer together you can eliminate the smaller shake registries. But if you're talking about the fact that you can never rest your hands & every move will cause the game to move that can also be fixed by having free movement of the controller with the sensors only registering when you trigger it by holder a button. which is probably why they should have kept the grip button on the controller but it still can be done with one of the top buttons on the controller.


But back to the subject of genres that could take advantage of defined orientation sensors. I think games like Jet Moto , Splashdown & Sled Storm could really make a comeback using these controls.

Edit: By the way just how many degrees do you guys think your wrists can turn?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Edit: By the way just how many degrees do you guys think your wrists can turn?

With a controller in one hand, 180 degrees (pointing up to down) is comfortable. Two-handed, 270 degrees (135 each way) is easy, and 360 (flip controller upside down) without too much contortion. For comparison, Warhawk's motion (as I had it set up) was probably thirty degrees lock side to side, where many gamers will twist a motion controller through 90 degrees when trying to eke more performance from their virtual craft than it can physical offer.

 

[onQ]

With a controller in one hand, 180 degrees (pointing up to down) is comfortable. Two-handed, 270 degrees (135 each way) is easy, and 360 (flip controller upside down) without too much contortion. For comparison, Warhawk's motion (as I had it set up) was probably thirty degrees lock side to side, where many gamers will twist a motion controller through 90 degrees when trying to eke more performance from their virtual craft than it can physical offer.

So your body has it's limits. And the game should know this using inverse kinematics & not let your virtual arms/wrist/hands/shoulders move in a unnatural way. Setting limits to the controls.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's not about limits, but expectations. When a person can shake the controller to make the character jump, they instinctively shake the controller harder to jump higher. If the game is designed to jump at maximum height at an acceleration of 2Gs, the players are still going to try 3 and 4G shakes to jump higher. And if you design the game so the maximum jump is achieved at 4Gs, the limits of human input on the controller, then the players find themselves having to shake it at maximum energy all the time to jump the standard height.

What's really required is for the motion controls to be sensible and for the gamer to learn them, like they have every other control input. But that doesn't seem popular. eg. I had no interest in learning Move controls for MAG when I already could play it well(ish) with dual sticks. My friends didn't care to learn how to use Warhawk's motion controls and were happier to stick with simple stick controls. We had to learn buttons and we had to learn sticks, but now these cover pretty much every contingency. All talk about motion controls is intuitiveness, which means fitting the player's expectations and making it easier to play. That then hits the expectations limits and absence of force feedback in restricting what's comfortably possibly. eg. Lair. The idea of simulating pulling in the reigns to guide the dragon clashed with players' expectations of direct control, and the control scheme was universally panned.

 

[onQ]

It's not about limits, but expectations. When a person can shake the controller to make the character jump, they instinctively shake the controller harder to jump higher. If the game is designed to jump at maximum height at an acceleration of 2Gs, the players are still going to try 3 and 4G shakes to jump higher. And if you design the game so the maximum jump is achieved at 4Gs, the limits of human input on the controller, then the players find themselves having to shake it at maximum energy all the time to jump the standard height.

What's really required is for the motion controls to be sensible and for the gamer to learn them, like they have every other control input. But that doesn't seem popular. eg. I had no interest in learning Move controls for MAG when I already could play it well(ish) with dual sticks. My friends didn't care to learn how to use Warhawk's motion controls and were happier to stick with simple stick controls. We had to learn buttons and we had to learn sticks, but now these cover pretty much every contingency. All talk about motion controls is intuitiveness, which means fitting the player's expectations and making it easier to play. That then hits the expectations limits and absence of force feedback in restricting what's comfortably possibly. eg. Lair. The idea of simulating pulling in the reigns to guide the dragon clashed with players' expectations of direct control, and the control scheme was universally panned.

But if the controls are 1:1 your body will be the resistance if the game is using IK to have a pretty good idea of how your body can move. .

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sure, but you're then limited to a small subset of games that can map 1:1 with your motions. And that's only resistance that your body provides. The great classic is sword fighting. Conceptually, sword fighting would be awesome with something like Move. But without force feedback, it's completely broken. You'd swing your sword, your arm is tracked exactly as you move, your sword hits their sword in a block and stops but your arm keeps moving. Now the virtual arm has completely lost track with the real arm.

In the case of a motion controlled aircraft/dragon, you could map it 1:1 with the DS4 so whatever rotation you apply is instantly mirrored on screen, but then you pretty much ensure a very arcadey style game with planes/dragons able to make completely unrealistic 90 degree angle changes in the blink of an eye. On a thumbstick, you'd push the stick until it locked and that'd tell you you're at maximum turning speed.

 

[onQ]

Sure, but you're then limited to a small subset of games that can map 1:1 with your motions. And that's only resistance that your body provides. The great classic is sword fighting. Conceptually, sword fighting would be awesome with something like Move. But without force feedback, it's completely broken. You'd swing your sword, your arm is tracked exactly as you move, your sword hits their sword in a block and stops but your arm keeps moving. Now the virtual arm has completely lost track with the real arm.

In the case of a motion controlled aircraft/dragon, you could map it 1:1 with the DS4 so whatever rotation you apply is instantly mirrored on screen, but then you pretty much ensure a very arcadey style game with planes/dragons able to make completely unrealistic 90 degree angle changes in the blink of an eye. On a thumbstick, you'd push the stick until it locked and that'd tell you you're at maximum turning speed.

Sword fighting can be worked around by shaking the avatar up when his sword is blocked & forcing a re position.

1:1 With the steering wheel doesn't mean 1:1 with the aircraft. If someone is making a impossible turn too fast the game should know not to accept that & slow it down.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sword fighting can be worked around by shaking the avatar up when his sword is blocked & forcing a re position.

That's not sword fighting though. You can't create real sword fighting, or anything physical, with motion controls that don't have the same physical limits.

1:1 With the steering wheel doesn't mean 1:1 with the aircraft. If someone is making a impossible turn too fast the game should know not to accept that & slow it down.

It doesn't have to, but if you don't map 1:1, the player loses connection with the game. It's expect of motion controls, or at least seems to be. That's the problem. You can make a game like that, but players won't connect. Warhawk had exactly that. Beyond certain tilt limits, it wouldn't change the speed of turn, but users still naturally tried to turn it faster. Either way, 1:1 or constrained, motion controls provide significant design issues in reaching the intended audience.

 

[onQ]

That's not sword fighting though. You can't create real sword fighting, or anything physical, with motion controls that don't have the same physical limits.

It doesn't have to, but if you don't map 1:1, the player loses connection with the game. It's expect of motion controls, or at least seems to be. That's the problem. You can make a game like that, but players won't connect. Warhawk had exactly that. Beyond certain tilt limits, it wouldn't change the speed of turn, but users still naturally tried to turn it faster. Either way, 1:1 or constrained, motion controls provide significant design issues in reaching the intended audience.

I'm pretty sure that anyone playing a game would understand that it's not 100% realistic & that the controller isn't going to stop in mid-air as you hit something in a game with the sword. shaking up the avatar or having the opponent push them away enough to re-position the controller with the sword should be as understandable as re-spawning after you get shot in your head in a shooting game.

 

[Arwin]

I can't believe the amount of nonsense people still talk in these threads about motion controls. It would be pathetic if it wasn't just so sad. That there are limitations to 1:1 tracking in terms of feedback in no way means that it still isn't a million miles superior for 1:1 tracking. I've played a fair few boxing and sword fighting games, and it takes only a little mental adjustment to know that when my hit has been blocked I have to bring my arm back, or whatever. It's a tiny thing compared to how much better it is to make natural, precise swings.

And that a flight stick has a maximum physical reach doesn't mean that an analog stick is better for a flight sim than the tilt in the DS4 either. Neither do any lag requirements - there's a natural delay in your movements and a plane's response already anyway. It's not like that if you would tremble holding a flight stick the plane would start shaking around equally fast! That's just ridiculous.

Shifty, I respect you highly, but you tire me to no end with all your discussions on this topic. Come back when you've actually tried sword-fighting with the Move, for instance in the original Sports Champions, and then talk to me about how broken that is and no fun whatsover. Or maybe explain to me how Table Tennis using the analog sticks is so hugely superior after you've actually tried it in Sports Champions. Or how boxing exercises in Move Fitness are so ridiculously broken because your hand isn't actually stopped by whatever it is punching. Or how Killzone 3 and Infamous: Festival of Blood (or 2) are far worse with Move, and why, after you've actually tried it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And that a flight stick has a maximum physical reach doesn't mean that an analog stick is better for a flight sim than the tilt in the DS4 either.

Shifty, I respect you highly, but you tire me to no end with all your discussions on this topic. Come back when you've actually tried sword-fighting with the Move, for instance in the original Sports Champions, and then talk to me about how broken that is and no fun whatsover.

I don't think you've read me correctly in this thread. I liked and used motion controls in Warhawk. I think it worked well. The masses didn't. I guess as much given the fact it was dropped from Starhawk and the devs should have had data on this.

I have never said motion controls are rubbish, nor really been against them, although I recognise the limitations and how they have to be factored into game design. My argument is from the business/developer POV how to target them, and if Joe Public even wants them. If Joe Public doesn't want them, it's a dead end, which has been my ever-present argument. Doesn't matter how awesome or capable the tech is (whether Kinect, Move, EyeToy, whatever, I've always been an advocate), the software and the user experience needs to be sufficient to maintain the platform and grow the concepts. Which repeatedly doesn't happen. There's a reason for that. How's about we identify what that reason is and if there's a fix, or if it's a commercial dead end? OnQ's points seem to fail to recognise the business and user aspects IMO which is why I raise then repeatedly every time he starts another motion control thread.

Or maybe explain to me how Table Tennis using the analog sticks is so hugely superior after you've actually tried it in Sports Champions.

I've played TT in Sports Champions. It was good. Thumbsticks aren't better and I never said they were. This thread isn't about Move though. It's about DS4, a controller with dual sticks, eight face buttons, four should buttons, a touch sensor and motion controls. Try reading it a little more carefully?

Edit: Okay, I see this comment irked you:

Conceptually, sword fighting would be awesome with something like Move. But without force feedback, it's completely broken.

That's probably expressed too harshly. Point being, the user loses all haptic, natural feedback for their actions, and has to learn to read the game and adapt. And it's that point which holds back motion games IMO (an opinion which can be argued against).
Me, post 24

What's really required is for the motion controls to be sensible and for the gamer to learn them, like they have every other control input. But that doesn't seem popular.

When a game requires the user to learn how to user it, you end up alienating gamers who just want an immediate interactivity, and I believe motion controls come with a lot more expectation that you can just drop in. Wii's success came about entirely because you didn't have to learn anything, and anyone could pick up the motion controller and move it how they felt they should and get a suitable result. If Wii's focus had been FPSes, it would have flunked because the learning curve was too impenetrable. I'm seeing this a lot in the game I'm making (and previous games made) as I test on people. There's absolutely zero interest in learning how to use the mobile touch interface. Everyone jumps in with preconceived ideas and expects the game to work according to those. If it doesn't, they lose interest. Hence the enthusiasm for one-touch games, where there's zero barrier to entry. Now I appreciate that core gamers owning a PS4 aren't going to be as fickle as mobile tap gamers, but we've still seen the learning requirements of motion controls being a barrier to entry and adoption. Joe Gamer could learn to read the screen when he swings his sword and try to match it and adapt, but he'd much rather that learning curve removed thanks to natural haptic feedback. similarly with Lair - the gamers wanted the movement to by direct, and Lair suffered as a result of trying to be original and more realistic. As a dev, you don't want to create some amazing new control scheme if it's just going to confuse your audience and scare them away. That limits what can be done with DS4's motion controls and game styles. IMO, the future would have to be games where the motion experience provides the fun, so whizzing down tunnels say, but I can't help but think back to the success of Warhawk's implementation and yet the failrue of its adoption. If people didn't want to use motion controls for flying, why would they want to for an infinite tunnel runner?

 

[Arwin]

Thank you for noting what indeed caused my irritation. But I think the main problem is that the larger part of the gaming audience has integrated analog sticks so well into their motor skills that the change to motion controls are not interesting to them, especially for existing games and genres. I believe VR may rekindle interest, but I also feel that it is a matter of giving up too early. I am not alone in finding shooters more enjoyable with a pointer, and default support for them on PS4 would have helped. On PS3 an almost surprisingly large number of FPSes supported Move, but we took a step back with PS4 now where none so far do.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree. The principle tenet of OnQ's recent threads is that DS4 is bringing something new to the motion gaming space that'll change things. My argument is nothing was particularly wrong with sixaxis, and the lack of motion developments wasn't due to the hardware being too inaccurate, but just a general lack of interest by developers. Hence DS4 isn't going to usher in a new genre of titles now that motion control is cranked up to 11 on the accuracy scale. The pointer aspect of DS4 sounds like it has promise, such as targeting like a mouse for AoE spells, although my usual industry-cynicism has me doubt it'll get used much. But even that use is far from a whole fabulous new genre.

 

[Arwin]

I agree. The principle tenet of OnQ's recent threads is that DS4 is bringing something new to the motion gaming space that'll change things. My argument is nothing was particularly wrong with sixaxis, and the lack of motion developments wasn't due to the hardware being too inaccurate, but just a general lack of interest by developers. Hence DS4 isn't going to usher in a new genre of titles now that motion control is cranked up to 11 on the accuracy scale. The pointer aspect of DS4 sounds like it has promise, such as targeting like a mouse for AoE spells, although my usual industry-cynicism has me doubt it'll get used much. But even that use is far from a whole fabulous new genre.

I do think actually that sixaxis was a little too hard to work with, and certainly couldn't be used with pointers. The DS4 should handle more like the Move in that respect, but even then as a pointer it has limitations if it works without the Playstation Camera, because then it needs to be recalibrated while playing if it is used as a pointer. The touchpad actually works better as a pointer, but it is easier to use the gyro while also using the d-pad, analog sticks, etc. at the same time. This is what I think would really help with controlling space-sim like items, or giant mechs, etc.

What we really need is good drivers for PC, so people can go experiment.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Other than your lambasting of me () you haven't yet contributed to the original question in this thread. Given your move-control enthusiasm and experience with DS4, are there any genres or ideas you think could be made popular thanks to DS4's superior motion tech compared to other devices?

In an FPS, motion control of the avatar, ducking (drop) and leaning (tilt) seemed an obvious fit, but it's never been realised. Is there a future in motion controlled first-person avatars?

 

[onQ]

I agree. The principle tenet of OnQ's recent threads is that DS4 is bringing something new to the motion gaming space that'll change things. My argument is nothing was particularly wrong with sixaxis, and the lack of motion developments wasn't due to the hardware being too inaccurate, but just a general lack of interest by developers. Hence DS4 isn't going to usher in a new genre of titles now that motion control is cranked up to 11 on the accuracy scale. The pointer aspect of DS4 sounds like it has promise, such as targeting like a mouse for AoE spells, although my usual industry-cynicism has me doubt it'll get used much. But even that use is far from a whole fabulous new genre.

That's not the principle of my thread.


My point is that IMU's have advanced over the last 7 years since the PS3 & Wii & so have the tools/API & the devs have more experience with the sensors now thanks to it being the 2nd time around & also all the mobile games that are being made using the sensors now. And being that the Wii U pad & DS4 are the standard controllers & not add-ons like Wii Motion + & PlayStation Move devs can use the features to enhance any game on the system knowing that everyone can use the feature.


Controllers with 6DoF orientation sensors are the closest thing to having your hands in the virtual world & it can do somethings better than a Dpad or Analog so giving devs the option to make games using a different input interface that has it's own advantages can = better games in genres that can be played better using the controls enabled by the sensors. Fact is you can do things with the DS4 & Wii U pad that you can't really do with controllers without the sensors. I'm just wondering which genre will reap the benefits of having a more mature 6DoF controller solution.

Example:

Adventure games (like Dreamfall) : With a normal controller, options pop up and you just press a button to choose what you want to do, but with the DS4 you could actually reach in and pick something up using the sensors as your right hand then use the touch pad as if you are reaching your left hand into the game to do actions.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Example:
Adventure games (like Dreamfall) : With a normal controller, options pop up and you just press a button to choose what you want to do, but with the DS4 you could actually reach in and pick something up using the sensors as your right hand then use the touch pad as if you are reaching your left hand into the game to do actions.

You could do that with sixaxis.

 

[onQ]

You could do that with sixaxis.

You could have also played Street Fighter 2 on the NES but the fact is it was better to do it on the SNES & that's where the magic happened.

 

[Arwin]

Other than your lambasting of me () you haven't yet contributed to the original question in this thread. Given your move-control enthusiasm and experience with DS4, are there any genres or ideas you think could be made popular thanks to DS4's superior motion tech compared to other devices?

In an FPS, motion control of the avatar, ducking (drop) and leaning (tilt) seemed an obvious fit, but it's never been realised. Is there a future in motion controlled first-person avatars?

The most obvious example that I've always thought of with the gyroscope (and sixaxis before) for many existing games, but FPS especially, is using it to look separate from aiming. If I were driving a car in a driving game, I would use it to look into the corner. In a sense that could be more natural than actually turning my head/headtracking, when combined with a static display, and although some of the racing games have options to map looking into a turn to buttons, they've so far never offered the options to map it to the sixaxis or Move (in GT6, I can map them to an analog stick or R2/L2 etc when using the controller and use that to sort of lean in, but it's not ideal). I'm hoping DriveClub will be the first to offer this - they are at least likely to offer tilt driving controls (I think those have been confirmed even, and they've always done so on PS3 with Motorstorm).

I would like the same in any first person game, but obviously with first person shooters decoupling the gun aiming from looking doesn't always make sense yet - I think with Oculus Rift though we've seen a few cases already where that happens, and then that application could translate well to the DS4 and a regular screen. It could also work really well with something like Project Teaser, making that a lot more natural.

In third person games that have the option to switch to a first person view for looking around, that would work well also. And in flight sims, instead of controlling the aircraft, it would also offer an option for looking around.

I would certainly also like to use it for aiming, though then preferably not just using the gyroscope, but also using the camera. Detail aiming, taking over from aim-assist, a little like Uncharted did on Vita, would also work well, as would gyro aiming for sniper shots and such. Actually pushing forward for things like opening doors, etc. as was used to some extent in Heavy Rain would work well for any game that has such interactions. Etc.

There were a few small things like this (the spray paint in Infamous SS for instance, with shaking included), that worked well. I would love to see that in LBP or GTA with some more freedom.

 

[onQ]

Arcade Sports games should make a comeback using the sensors.


Football: use the pointer controls to aim your pass or even take it beyond that and let the sensors be used for the whole pass as you to a throwing motion with the controller (but that might be too much).

Basketball: free throws can be done kinda like the paper toss games on smartphones using the sensors to aim and touch pad to shoot.


Hockey: use the senors to skate your player around on the ice & use the touch pad to hit the puck.


Soccer: same as Hockey