Mass Effect 2 Secrets Revealed
12 hours 44 mins ago
With much buzz about xbox 360's motion based plans in the form of Project Natal many are wondering if 360 is solely trying to copy the Wii. Sure they are trying to make control-less gaming happen but is this enough to set itself apart?. Here is a closer look to know the facts.
Project Natal made big waves at E3, arguably more than the PS3 motion controller, soon after both press conferences announced their respective projects many debates were sparked as to which tech was the superior one. Both “controllers” are fairly different and it seems that the two are going to be targeting different markets but is this true?
Comments
I do agree, Microsoft's biggest hurdle is getting past the gimmick. Once they show off some demos with it implemented in genres that the "core" audience are interested in; they'll win over the skeptics.
I wouldn't complain. I would rather use motion based games on a hardcore games console than a family one.
As long as most of the games that come out in the future still use the controller to play.
As for the fact of copying, its more PS3 that are directly copying Wii (but once again vastly improving on the idea).
I think People need to stop focusing so much on these two new motion controllers and thinking they'll change the face of gaming. They're new controllers . . . get over it. There's no reason to hate and foam at the mouth, and there's no reason to love and scream like little schoolgirls who see their favorite boy bands on stage.
I like the idea behind it all, but the way I see it is that BOTH of these are just prototypes of what may come in the future of gaming. It's like a first step in VR. It's of course going to stink to the high heavens and be more of a gimmick and be a FAD (read . . . FAD!! Not game-changing, just a FAD, FAD, FAD!!!). Just pass it off as "Oh, cool." And keep on walking. Don't get excited until they keep improving upon it until finally they do reach a point where it's pretty good and on par with actual, Virtual Reality. (But then, VR won't be VR until they develop some way to have your TV screen move WITH you when you & your character turn, while still sensing your complete body movement.)
With Wii's unbelievable success and Sony and Microsoft taking it to new heights, it's safe to say that motion sensor will sit right alongside the controller for a good long while if not be a default for next gen consoles.
The wii is designed to get thos interested in gaming that don't usually like it.
That is correct.
IT ISN'T BECAUSE OF THE MOTION SENSOR.
It's because of games like these "wiimusic, wiifit, wiiplay" leading the triple a titles, and even core games like mario and zelda has been considerably dumb down in terms of difficulty to appease to the casual gamers. motion sensors has NOTHING to do with it being casual, kids just found it cool, like when they thought the PS3 was totally awesome before it's price tag.
If microsoft where to completely give up on core gamers and gain an image like nintendo releasing only casual titles with very limited hardcore titles it wouldn't need motion sense controllers to do it. Like I said before little kids saw the wii-mote automatically deemed it cool and nintendo started using that to there advantage.
The wiimote was made to experiance a new way of gaming. NOT to bring casual gamers into the mix. Casual games bring casual gamers. Casual consoles bring casual gamers.
The wii with it's wii-mote happens to be both. motion sense controller is not a fad and it's here to stay.
anyway, do you think games like Wii Sports would have been made if not for the remote? no, cause the whole point of those games is for using the remote. if not for the remote, they would not have made Sports, Music, etc. even the main reason for Wii Play was to get ppl used to using the remote in different ways. it teaches you how to manipulate it in 3D space.
the whole point is casual gamers look at a traditional controller and are intimidated by it because of all the buttons. but you see a Wii remote and learn that you can play games just by moving it around, and thats what draws them in. do you think Wii Play would have sold as well as it has if it came with a normal controller instead of a remote? no way.
Oh wait.
As for the games, yes they where made for the wii-mote (I'll call it wii-mote if it suits me). Thing is, it didn't take wii-mote to show off that the casual market is where the big bucks are played. Nintendo aimed the wii with simplicity in mind, but the remote was aimed with a new form of interacting with your games. The 2 go hand in hand together, since most of the kids did all the hype for the controller.
Granted, there are games that use these controllers as a cheap gimmick, but there's a perfectly good explanation for that. In fact there's 3:
The wii is cheap and easiest to produce
It's main audience is aimed at the whole family namely young children
The title (with good advertising) is almost guaranteed to be a hit despite how good it is (maybe it won't make record making sales but it will still make alot more money than it took to actually create.
The developers take advantage of that, just like what there doing with the DS. Since the ds is so popular they take it's strengths and abuse it to make gimmicky games. However that does not mean that nintendo failed about taking gaming to the next level.
Maybe taking it to the next level is overreacting but nintendo and developers certainly showed what the wii-mote is capable of.
Games like Red steel 2 which flawlessly uses the motion plus to add terrific swordplay with gun action and the fact that it's already been established that the FPS's work well with the controller. Wii-fit board seems to take games like Tony Hawk or Shaun White games to a more interactive level of gaming.
Would I prefer a normal controller? yes but there's still that level of interaction that's there that Nintendo wants us to use.
I agree with your last paragraph.
The wii was designed to attract casual gamers. The wii-mote fits that design flawlessly. Thats a given, but calling motion sense a fad or gimmick is just wrong. You can think that it is, but it isn't. Microsoft and Sony are prime examples that motion sense controllers are here to stay. Especially since there still catering to the hardcore gamers. Obviously there's bound to be gimmicks and casual titles that's a given because these things will more than likely take off.
Motion Controllers are here to stay. They will probably never replace the good old controllers, but I can see that next gen consoles will have them as the second default controller. Or sold separately for more money. *looks at microsoft*
I never said I was good with it, but it IS accurate.
You don't even explain how it's inaccurate, with motion sense, you can aim much more faster at the speed and precision you want, something you can't do with a normal controller.
So go on, how is it not accurate?
how its inaccurate is it doesnt have as high a DPI as mouses do, plus its easier to move your thumbs to aim than your whole arm, especially when youve been doing it for 10+ years. RE4 on PS2 was 10x easier at least to aim than on Wii. thats how its inaccurate.
Games like Metroid, Call of Duty, medal of honor, all of these have amazing controls that automatically suit to your needs, in terms of aiming and such. They took there time to develop the controls like it should. I even heard the conduit has amazing controls, but I haven't played that yet.
This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.