New Wii footage

Quite often when you are walking in a corridor, sneaking around a corner while trying to maximize cover, or are walking over uneven terrain with lots of hills or dips.

I count 17 minor verticle adjustments in the first 2 minutes of that video alone. Being ridiculous would be denying the example when the video clearly shows it happening 17 times in 2 minutes.

 

I'm another one. I've rarely if ever gotten into a game solely because it offered some crazy new graphics engine. Bioshock interests me not because of the normal mapping and potentially vividly rendered worlds, but because the gaming paradigm of games like Deus Ex and System Shock has been pathetically unexplored and has a huge amount of potential. Do people dream of TF2 because it will have per-pixel lighting, or because so few FPSs have gameplay even approaching what TFC did? Which would hurt Halo more: taking away the bump-mapping, or taking away the vehicles, grenade button, and melee attack button?

I don't really care how the innovation comes about. There was once a time when developers innovated because that's just what they did. Descent 3, Duke Nukem 3D, Deus Ex, Dungeon Keeper, Sim City, and Fallout to this day still feel fresher than 90% of what hits the shelves today, despite being crusty and old (I didn't start console gaming until Gamecube). If developers were still blowing open whole new worlds of gaming whenever, wherever, on whatever platform and just because, I might not be so interested in Wii. I'd probably still be salivating over the latest PC release from Origin or Bullfrog. But for whatever reason, Wii seems to have gotten developers innovating instead of saying "Well, this time it's Mechwarrior...with self-shadowing!" The controller is really more of the catalyst than the foundation, I think.

 

Really? The official press release about the controller says this
http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/060509be.pdf

while this Sandio 6DOF 3D mouse is described like this
http://www.sandiotech.com/index.php?id=41

To me it seems they are the same system.

 

Hmm. Color me corrected.

I hope it translates to innovative games for the system. If it does, PS3 would become an interesting system for me. At least once the price drops from nosebleed heights.

 

oic why I had the impression the PS3 controller didn't do Z-Axis movements. I must've read the IGN article on it a few months ago.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/705/705870p1.html

It seems that it's only good for general motion, like leaning into a curve during a racing game for steering purposes, but not for specific actions.

Either way, it's good that Sony is implementing this. It won't be as good as the Wii, but advancements like these are necessary in order to keep gaming fresh.

 

No because with a standard controller you aren't doing anything with your arm. You stand and hold a controller with both hands and its pretty much motionless. What these people are doing is standing with there arm outstretched holding a controller with one hand and aiming with it, totally different. Surely that's obvious Shifty, I mean common..

As Beafy said the way to control a game like that is to rest your arm on something like your knee while sitting down. If you can't imagine that then just go and do it, stand and hold something, stretch your arm out and aim with it. Now sit down with your arm resting on your knee or on the arm of the chair or whatever, relax and aim with the same object.

 

Probably the precision is lower in the PS3 controller as the IGN FAQ suggests, though no one knows how much the difference is. But as I wrote above when you use the Wii remote as a sword, a tennis racket or a golf club like in real life you can't always point to the sensor bar. For that usage the Wii controller has to rely only on its 3-axis motion sensor which is likely to be less precise than the IR pointer if you believe the PS3 controller is generally less precise than the Wii controller.

The clearest advantage of the Wii controller is it has 2 independent motion sensors in the remote and the nunchaku. Alternatively you can use 2 remotes (the drum simulator) but I don't know if the SKU has 2 remotes packed in.

 

Powderkeg: True, to a point. You're making people sound like complete sheep, which is an exaggeration.

But sometimes true. I think your angst towards the ever-flocking mainstream is clouding your judgment a little, though.

My points were:

A. Wii Airplane does not look that bad. It's got a grand view that's apparent as soon as you start it. You apparently start the kiosk demo way up in the sky. I mean, it's not like they're trying to sell pachinko here or something. It's a next-gen game with pastel graphics.

B. Your point and mine pretty much overlap. Assuming that boxart sells a game though is just... you're talking Wal-Mart gamers here. Preteens, at best. Pretty much anybody that's blindly buying a game is surely going to scope out the screenshots on the back.

Enter The Matrix sold a lot because it's a tie-in game and The Matrix has a lot of fans.

 

I think that Wii does still have a big advantage (for innovation) over PS3 (besides pointing) that is it requires dev to be (somewhat) innovative, ie look at Resistance for PS3 it is just anouther FPS there is nothing new there besides gfx (even if it is very well done) yet it will probably be fine on the PS3, yet in the Wii even the frist FPS (which I still consider not very innovative) are already mixing some genres like FPS/light gun/sword fighting (I remember when I played Virtua Cop and such that I used think :it would be so coll if I could control the guy). Other example is Virtua Tennis 3, it seems great but look at WiiSport (or it is to see the first "real" Tennis game for wii).

I still think that price is also a big advantage in the first years (in the later ones market is usally well defined already).

Other one is marketing, they will not try to "sell" it to gamers (those already know and no market can change Powderkeg, if possible just because he tried or it caused enough buzz to make him try) but they can focus primary in the market they want just putting WiiSport to people try instead of costly render targets and such on stores along side a few games that use some special capabilitys (which may confuse no gamers too).

The easy to pick gameplay that it can have is very good I as I already know quite a few people who said let me try that game but then after I explain them 10+ diferent thing and kepping tell them how to do more they just give up, even I fell intimidated with the control of some games (eg FSW, I knew I would buy the sequel the moment I heard harder controls). It can be good for no gamers but also gamers.

Personally I think that if SW can do a good use of the HW they can have a very good thing, not that will necessarely surpasse or repace everything in everything.

 

When you look at it as a zero sum game I can see coming to those conclusions but i am expecting to have portion of 360/PS3 games bring the grfx, the gameplay innovation, and the fun.

Well then i guess what i'm saying is that i am not convinced that this controller would be innovative enough for me to swear off the cutting edge consoles if i could ONLY choose one. It feels like Nintendo has come up with great new ways to prepare a baked potato and creamed spinach; but the NY Strip Steak itself, not so good. For me, i still need the steak to be great.

I can afford to buy a steak from Sony and MS and then buy the sides from Nintendo but what about everyone else?

 

I think IGN has got it wrong. According to them the controller doesn't even work on a Z axis at all. Yet Sony says it does. I think at that time IGN must not have seen the documents or heard what Sony was offering.

 

Well for one its a bit early to assume what either Resistance or Red Steel are bringing to the genre. Innovation is often a subjective criteria and it also says nothing to a game's overall quality. A new idea can be poorly implemented, just as an old idea can be improved upon.

I also don't think a new interface (or lack there of) precludes the ability of advanced graphics and computation to improve and innovate within the medium. Both directions have their possibilities and drawbacks. A hypothetical PS3/360 FPS could offer new and improved aspects of interactivity (physics for example), scale, AI and immersion with their increased power just as much as a hypothetical Wii FPS could offer a new way to control shooting at things.

 

Why do people consider the Wii this ultra fun console that will blow your mind, while the 360 and PS3 are just great graphics machines that don't have fun games?

Why do people act like the PS3 and 360 won't deliver in the gameplay department? Dead Rising anyone.

 

McKmas: I'm not. Personally, up until the $600 announcement, I was set on buying a Wii and a PS3.

 

Nintendo marketing.

Only half kidding there, but I guess it has to do with graphics being a predominant focus during the next-gen transition (par for the course), so thats what tends to be emphasized initially. And obviously Nintendo is going against the grain a bit this generation in that regard, so all their talk has been about "refreshing" the industry. Which certainly has its merit to some degree.

But when its all said and done beyond the fact that increasing technology brings its own innovative capabilities, there's also way too many talented and creative studios developing for the "next-gen" consoles for Nintendo to have the "creativity and innovation" market cornered. Let alone the majority of it. They'll drive in their segment and share, just as the "Big Two" will.

 

I am working with the assumption that games will end up what they want/say it to be, just a hippotetical scenario.

I also agree that power can be a way to innovation (Portal and AssassinCreed (if not possible one Wii like we expect) are good examples of that) but I always said (long before Wii, 1 eg) that new interface can do much more, so it is not because I am a N fan boy.

Who said that, people said that will not compete (not that will not have) on the innovation department, in intuitive gameplay department, easy to pick ...Personally I think that I would like a Wii60 or PSWii (or whatever is called) as I doubt that only one console can deliver all I want, meybe next next gen .

 

Another question.

Am I the only person that might go with a PS360 within the next 5 years? I've never ever in my life seen one person say they will get a PS3 and 360. I mean there are at least 10 games in 2007 that are exclusive to the PS3 and 360 that will be some of the best games in console history.

Is anybody else here thinking about going PS360?

 

Why does it need to be mentioned? It's frickin' demonstrated. You could see how the field of vision was being turned, you could see the turning speed...

All our comments here have been regarding that, which is plainly evident. As I said before, the game could perfectly well have more options or be enhanced before launch, but if what's being demoed is the only way it's going to be... Ick.

It might "feel intuitive," but it also "feels limiting." For instance, check out ponderous turning speed at 1:50 on the videos on the first page. I'd feel slow making that bank in Mario Kart.

I'm simply saying if what they're showing is the extent, then I will be sadly disappointed. Being intuitive only gets you in faster, but in the long run it's going deeper that counts. Will there be a way to instant-180? Will there be variable turning speed? Can you switch between edge-turning and conventional FPS control (crosshairs centered, moving the field of vision) on the fly? From a menu?

Comments made about it being "too sensitive" strike me as extremely strange (not to mention pointless), because you can adjust the sensitivity. (There would, of course, be the necessity for a "recentering" command if you change your hand position overly, but that's about it.) What makes something like that more "intuitive" than, oh... the way every FPS so far has been done since Day 1? Maybe for getting a handful of new people in, but what about the 3 billion who already know what's what?

 

I guess this is where I diverge. I do think improving/expanding control is very important, but I'll have to strongly disagree it holds any substantial importance over computational ability. Videogames are a visual medium first and foremost, and the feedback we get from the display is always going to be paramount. The interface is certainly the gateway of sorts, but I think the visualization (and more importantly how things move and react) will continue to have the biggest impact on the user. I don't see this fundamentally changing until the display itself evolves somehow (beyond the television/monitor).

 

Agreed.

New methods of controlling a game are always welcome, but computational ability is still very important.

The implementation of the controls is more important than the control method itself, as is what is being controlled in the game environment.

One could argue that a game controlled primarily by voice control, or body gestures could offer interesting and unique gameplay. While many games have tried and failed in this manner, maybe the additional horsepower from ps3/xbox360 will make these things a reality.

Or somebody might try to make another voxel powered game...