Sony's possible answer to the NR controller

[SGX-1]

Or perhaps I haven't a personal agenda and I was discussion technical points on a technical forum? Whereas your posts are entirely pro-Nintendo/anti-Sony propaganda with a closed mine and inability to see pros and cons for different technologies.

This is a console forum. Being more advanced but not translating to any significant gaming benefit is moot so why argue which is more advanced if not to insinuate one is better than the other? It's more advanced and?

Due to processing requirements. The required algorithms for filtering objects from background and determining position are very intensive, but also ideally suited for the SPE's. Plus EyeToy2 adds higher resolution and infrared functionality to the hardware. Just as what can be achieved with GPUs and CPUs and motion detectors has improved over time, so to will what's possible with a camera, meaning Eyetoy2 can acheive more than EyeToy1, just as Rev's motion detectors are more accurate than Microsoft's old flight-stick. It's called progress

ET2 must be the Trojan Horse that everybody is talking about then. I wonder why nobody is excited about it as you are.

What has that got to do with what I said? I was talking about how well a different control system is used, not how well it is liked. The truth remains that despite having touch-screen input the majority of developers are still using traditional control interfaces with limited use of these functions. Please try to understand the concept here - how well will a control system be deveoped for, and not how well will it be appreciated by the gamers which is not a point I was addressing. And also it was more an example of how EyeToy2 won't get as much use because it's competing with a traditional controller system, so there's no need to get you Nintendo-knickers in a twist thinking I dissing the Rev controller.

The different types of games that are suited to a touchscreen are different to that of Revolution's DPD. That's like saying "Since a fork cannot be used with many different types of foods, a spoon won't be either". There are far more things you can do with the DPD controller than you could with a touchscreen therefore more types of games can be used with it.

 

[mckmas8808]

ET2 must be the Trojan Horse that everybody is talking about then. I wonder why nobody is excited about it as you are.

Sony has talked about it at E3. They talked about it on the main stage before showing the crowd what the PS3 looked like. Sony execs even went into detail about what some of the advantages are. Where have you been?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The different types of games that are suited to a touchscreen are different to that of Revolution's DPD. That's like saying "Since a fork cannot be used with many different types of foods, a spoon won't be either". There are far more things you can do with the DPD controller than you could with a touchscreen therefore more types of games can be used with it.

You've totally missed the point. How many times have I got to say I wasn't even talking about comparing touchscreen with Rev controller and what games can be used on them? I'm not going waste my time trying to explain things or enter into discussion with you anymore. If you're going to read every comment anyone post as being either pro- ro anti- Nintendo you're going to miss a lot of truth. Indeed, with this and you gaming talk you have the privilege to be the first on my ignore list.

 

[Quaz51]

and the Eytoys1 is bandwith limited, it's connected to an USB port 12Mbps with a lot artifact compression that limit sorely the image-analyze/tracking, for the PS3 the Eyetoys2 will have a dedicated 1000Mbps port, it's very better

 

[SGX-1]

Did you forget that your head can be the stylus. And a microphone headset is all you need for voice recgonition.

What are you talking about???

 

[oli2]

Sony has talked about it at E3. They talked about it on the main stage before showing the crowd what the PS3 looked like. Sony execs even went into detail about what some of the advantages are. Where have you been?

Unfair.

He was talking about here. On B3D, unless i missed it, you don't find a ten pages thread about ET2.

Nintendo shows its new (IMHO wonderfull) controller, then some here suddenly remember how ET is more advanced.

Why am i at the moment more excited by this new controller ?
- This is number 1 on NR and not second and third, so i think the overall investment will be more important. (from Nintendo at least)
For me, this is the same comparison as Internet on DC and Xbox live ...
- It seems, as not as technological, more mature and master-able to provide mid-term huge results, than ET.

In my thinking, there are a lot of "it seems", "it could". That 's all.

 

[SGX-1]

Sony has talked about it at E3. They talked about it on the main stage before showing the crowd what the PS3 looked like. Sony execs even went into detail about what some of the advantages are. Where have you been?

SONY showed smoke and mirror demos to hype people up, however, I've not heard anyone really interested in the ET2. They hype a lot of things and sometimes nothing really happes with it during the life of the console. The ET2 will be one of those things that wont get much specific support.

 

[SGX-1]

You've totally missed the point. How many times have I got to say I wasn't even talking about comparing touchscreen with Rev controller and what games can be used on them? I'm not going waste my time trying to explain things or enter into discussion with you anymore. If you're going to read every comment anyone post as being either pro- ro anti- Nintendo you're going to miss a lot of truth. Indeed, with this and you gaming talk you have the privilege to be the first on my ignore list.

Your excuse was that since the DS didn't get a large chunk of developers to support the touch screen interface, the same thing will happen to Rev. I say the DS interface and Rev's interface are very different therefore more developers may support Rev's controller than DS's. Yeah go ahead and put me on ignore since it's a convenient way to dodge a point you cannot rebutt.

 

[Squeak]

Nonsense. AR != see through head mounted display. Although many people like to claim Sutherland's work was AR, it was AR in only the very weakest sense. AR was coined in an ACM article in '93, and the systems define since then include machine vision or sensor technology as a fundamental component. It is not enough to overlay 3D graphics on reality. The process has to be two way: reality must also be sampled and input into the system.

For example, in Sutherland's system, overlaid 3D objects would not properly collide with real world objects, nor be occluded by real world geometry.

The fact is, achieving AR is much harder than achieving a well engineered gyro mouse. From a computer science point of view, advances in AR are far more innovative and interesting than yet another refinement of pointing technology.

The Rev controlled may be more immediately useful, but I don't perceive it as anything fundamentally innovative. It's just a repackaging of well unknown technology for a mass produced consumer audience. And it's one that I perceive will be useful primarily for "gimmick games", just like the eye toy and dance pad games of today. And pretty soon, the gimmick of using the controller as a sword, fishingrod, or airplane is going to get old.

Sutherlands system “knewâ€￾ the room, the persons head and the magic wand, those are all realworld objects. For example you could paste 2D drawings on the walls of the room, or look out a window with appropriate clipping. The lack of more advanced hidden line removal can hardly be “blamedâ€￾ as the hidden line removal problem was only solved the year before.

But this is all semantics. The real question is, are we talking technical or gameplay innovation?
From a technical point of view then sure, eyetoy will demand more processing power and will be able to do some trippy stuff, like turning your living room into a gameworld, but I can’t imagine any of those abilities to have the same broad general impact as the Revolution controller.

This revolution controller just seems to me to not be something that is going to become second nature, since almost everygame will use it in a completely new and perhaps bizarre way, such that the control for it will have to be learned all over again. Oh, in game X, you need to slash with it, in game Y you need to flick it, in game Z use it to point like a gun, and in game W use it like a turret. etc Rather than just learning a new set of button mappings, users must learn new kinetics.

The same thing could be said about a mouse or the DS stylus. In one game it’s a gun in another a cursor yet another a rolling ball.
People adapt.
Learning, getting better, that’s part of the fun of games.

 

[mckmas8808]

Unfair.

He was talking about here. On B3D, unless i missed it, you don't find a ten pages thread about ET2.

People talk about it for a way. It was around E3. Do a search to see what the Eyetoy 2 will bring to the gaming world.

 

[Powderkeg]

Your excuse was that since the DS didn't get a large chunk of developers to support the touch screen interface, the same thing will happen to Rev. I say the DS interface and Rev's interface are very different therefore more developers may support Rev's controller than DS's.

I say the developers won't support anything that doesn't provide reasonable assurances of them making a profit, and so far, I've seen nothing from Nintendo's controller that suggests that games on the Revolution would actually sell better than DS games.

If you think developers support controllers, or any specific companies hardware in general, you've got a very poor sense of business. Developers support profit, and Nintendo systems are the black hole for 3rd party developers. More often than not, developers lose money supporting Nintendo systems, which is why so many of them dropped support for the GCN.

And no gimmicky controller is going to change that. The only way that will change is if Nintendo can convince it's own fan base to stop buying so many 1st party titles and invest more in 3rd party games.

 

[Teasy]

This revolution controller just seems to me to not be something that is going to become second nature, since almost everygame will use it in a completely new and perhaps bizarre way, such that the control for it will have to be learned all over again. Oh, in game X, you need to slash with it, in game Y you need to flick it, in game Z use it to point like a gun, and in game W use it like a turret. etc Rather than just learning a new set of button mappings, users must learn new kinetics.

It's completely the other way around. For instance, pressing A plus up and left is not easier to learn then just swinging your hand up and left. Moving a stick down and right a bit until you get to a target and pressing A is not easier to learn then just pointing and pressing the trigger. How can you describe any of these motions as bizarre when they're the kind of things everyone on earth has done numerous times in their lives? I mean how many times did everyone here play Cowboys and Indians as kids? How many times did they play with fake swords with their friends? Not only that but these actions actually relate directly to the action in the game, so really no learning is neccesary. Its childs play compared to using a collection of buttons and sticks that really have absolutely no relation to the actions they effect.

The more I think about the Revolution controller the more I understand and appreciate what Nintendo are doing. They said that they wanted to create an interface that anyone could use, and I think they've done that. Its not perfect for all games, but nothing ever is. As I see it the Revolution controller can take video gaming back to where gaming all began, before A+B plus stick left was needed to parry your friends plastic sword

Incidentally I was thinking today about snooker/pool games on Revolution. How great would that be!

 

[Powderkeg]

It's completely the other way around. How is pressing, for instance, A plus up and left easier to learn then just swinging your hand up and left? How is moving a stick down and right a bit until you get to a target and pressing A easier to learn then just pointing and pressing the trigger? How can you describe any of these motions as bizarre?

Because I've been pressing buttons and moving sticks to control games for over 30 years now. How long have you been using the Nintendo Revolution system of control?


I could make a strong argument that an analog joystick with 2 buttons for shifting would be a better way of controlling a car than using a wheel , 3 pedals, and a seperate 6 position lever. But I doubt you would find many people who would automatically assume it would be more intuitive.

 

[Teasy]

You and I have been pressing button X and Z for years Powderkeg, so yeah its easy for us (though still not easier). But that doesn't actually make it easy in general. How long we've used the Revolution controller doesn't really come into it either (not for the examples given). Because in the end swinging a imaginary sword or aiming and imaginary gun is something that everyone in the world knows how to do.

Also regarding your car comparison. We're not talking about using something foreign or unrelated here (like using a stick and buttons to drive a real car). We're talking about, say, poking at a virtual ball with the controller in order to pot it or swinging the controller to swing a baseball bat and hit a home run. These are natural instinctive controls, because they're are the same movements you'd need to make if you were playing snooker or baseball in real life.

 

[Powderkeg]

You and I have been pressing button X and Z for years Powderkeg, so yeah its easy for us (though still not easier). But that doesn't actually make it easy in general. How long we've used the Revolution controller doesn't really come into it either (not for the examples given). Because in the end swinging a imaginary sword or aiming and imaginary gun is something that everyone in the world knows how to do.

Limiting your arm and hand movements to only delibrate, intentional motions is about as unnatural as you can get though.

Also regarding your car comparison. We're not talking about using something foreign or unrelated here (like using a stick and buttons to drive a real car). We're talking about, say, poking at a virtual ball with the controller in order to pot it or swinging the controller to swing a baseball bat and hit a home run. These are natural instinctive controls, because they're are the same movements you'd need to make if you were playing snooker or baseball in real life.

Are they?

Tell me, when you play snookers, how many times do you point the stick in some direction other than directly at the ball you want to hit during the course of the entire game? If someone speaks, do you turn to talk to them? Do you move your hands if you cough or sneeze? Do you lean to grab a drink?

Remember that while you hold that Nintendo controller and the game is running, not only are you unable to move your arms in random directions, but you also are unable to move your body in any way you shift your hands.

Think about this. The normal human reaction to fright or surprise is to move up, and backwards. It's instinctive, and everyone does it.

So, every time something jumps out in a horror game, the player woulod straighten their back, and lean backwards. The result is the controller would be moved up and backwards as well. The question is, is that the control input you want to make every single time?

 

[gokickrocks]

Tell me, when you play snookers, how many times do you point the stick in some direction other than directly at the ball you want to hit during the course of the entire game? If someone speaks, do you turn to talk to them? Do you move your hands if you cough or sneeze? Do you lean to grab a drink?

Remember that while you hold that Nintendo controller and the game is running, not only are you unable to move your arms in random directions, but you also are unable to move your body in any way you shift your hands.

i dont know about you, but when i play snookers, sometimes there's an obstacle that is in front of the ball i want to hit so i dont always directly point the stick in the same direction as the ball

if someone speaks, why does it require you to turn your head? if you are the kind of person that does that then wouldnt it have the same effect if you were using a regular controller? you would lose focus of the game with either controller...same point for the cough and sneeze, but with the revolution controller, you can cover your mouth with your free hand

grabbing a drink while playing is worse off on the regular controller as it requires 2 hands, whereas the revolution's controller requires 1...or you can just PAUSE the damn game

now for the last point...the body has plenty of joints which will compensate...take a normal computer keyboard for example, your wrist compensates for the alignment of your arms

 

[Sis]

I could make a strong argument that an analog joystick with 2 buttons for shifting would be a better way of controlling a car than using a wheel , 3 pedals, and a seperate 6 position lever. But I doubt you would find many people who would automatically assume it would be more intuitive.

A) I doubt you could actually make a strong argument for the "drive by joystick" concept. And B) Even if you could, it's so completely irrelevant to the discussion that it doesn't really merit a response. And C) I'm a sucker for these kinds of posts and end up responding anyway .

If we go way back, wagons used two straps or reins to steer the horses. Given your predilection for not changing interfaces, you'd expect that the automobile today would actually have two pully cables that you tugged to go either left or right.

I'd also suggest that just because an interface is different, it isn't necessarily better (which I believe is your thinking as well) but that Nintendo's solution is interesting enough--and compelling enough--that it definitely could be better.

What is stopping it from being so? Primarily the argument falls to the following issues:

1) Poor implementation by Nintendo (low accuracy, difficult to use)
2) Poor controller to game mechanics--this argument is the "It isn't any good to use" and was killed by over exaggeration by the "what if I want to lay down and play" argument
3) Finally, the "It's already been done and failed before" argument.

In my mind, 1 and 2 are only solved by blindly trusting Nintendo to get it right. They have to both create an excellent system and also create games that show other developers "how to do it". I concede that blindly trusting a company is not a real good argument, but that's honestly all anyone at this point has.

I don't have an answer for #3. I think it's valid to say, "You know, it sucked on the Power Glove and it sucked on this other contoller with gyros and company X tried it and failed." So I think it's a valid argument and honestly the response of "technology has improved" is probably only slightly more compelling than "blindly trust Nintendo to do the right thing".

That said, I'd like to add: We get it. Nintendo is going where others have failed. We no longer consider this interesting to know. The contoller may suck to use. This is possible. The games may suck for it, just like some games suck using the stylus on the DS. But you have to admit that Nintendo is really trying something different and maybe, just maybe, it could really be cool.

Ok, now I'm rambling...

.Sis

 

[V3]

That still has the problem of being a peripheral though, and peripherals rarely garner enough of a user base to make huge inroads into games. Sony and Nintendo certainly seem to be offering more controller options from the off, whereas MS have taken a very traditional approach with focus on the online experience. Which is good diversity throughout the cosole market.

They can packed it in as standard later, like Sony did with Dual Shock. MS is hardly innovator, but they're one of the best company at beating their competitor at their own game. My point was, Rev controller is very easy for competitor to copy, because there is nothing special about its technology.

This is only IF the Rev controller is all that promised.

 

[rabidrabbit]

One little thing that just came to my mind conserning the Eye Toy technology and some HD displays, namely front projectors.
For a large high definition display I can see many going for a more affordable front projector than some expensive plasma or lcd display. I'm planning to get one soon as my primary gaming and movie display.

You must place the Eye Toy facing you, and also facing the very bright projector light beam that's coming from above/behind you. In addition the room must be quite dark for the picture.
In those conditions I think at least the current Eye Toy would be useless.

I hadn't thought about this before, and I'm really looking forward to the EyeToy 2, but if I want to use it with a HD display, I guess a projector is out of the question then

 

[Guden Oden]

My point was, Rev controller is very easy for competitor to copy, because there is nothing special about its technology.

As opposed to what, a standard controller? It's not as if every console maker on earth have been busy copying Nintendo's controllers since the early 80s, oh no...