KB/M vs Wiimote accuracy - Okay, so what?

So in summary, holding a remote control and aiming it at the screen is totally immersive and nearly realistic enough to qualify you as a licensed firearm carrier while 3D sound, ever improving realistic visual settings, and true physics have no immersion value of their own.

Have I got it?

[QUOTE="TimeToPartyHard"][QUOTE="froidnite"][QUOTE="TimeToPartyHard"][QUOTE="froidnite"]

My point is you can adjust the sensitivity to suit ur needs(not too high, not too low, somewhere inb/w that's best for u), whereas in case of wiimote u have to get used to default sensitivity which unlinke you some people may find difficult.

froidnite

The problem with what you're saying is that the wiimote sensitivity is your own. It's custom to each person. While a mouse may benefit from increased sensitivity, the wiimote would not since you're using it more directly with the screen, by pointing. If you moved only a slight bit, and the cursor zoomed across the screen, it would be too disorienting and counter-intuitive.

Again that people won't benefit from increased sensitivity(You haven't even tried to answer to people who find RE4's sensitivity to be too high) is your opinion. And the example you gave is of a overly sensitive controller, i mean if you can have control over sensitivity you wouldn't keep it that high.

There's a point where it is overly sensitive. Even for the most experienced player. Anything faster than your abilities is too fast, the wiimote is only limited by your abilities.

I havn't answered people who find RE4's sensitivity too high because they don't exist. The wiimote's sensitivity is about 1:1. You move your wristx angle, your cursor moves y inches on the screen in near direct correllation with one another. Any complaints of over sensitive RE4 controls aredue to spastic players who freak out and over do their movements, or from people with little or no wii experience. It's that simple, if RE4's too sensitive then is real life. If RE4 is too sensitive for anyone, please point them out so I can try to watch them eat a bowl of cereal.

I heard some people complaining abt aiming in the sniper rifle(I also heard the rifle aiming isn't done using wii mote, but still, it's part of the game) is difficult because of hypersensitinity.

Anyway, there's no point in arguin I guess cos people's preference isn't dictated by logic, it's just that they are more comfortable with it.

But even you have to agree that there is a need for sensitivity adjustments in wii games. I know it's the dev's fault for not including the option in the game, and i also hope it's included in future games.

The sniper rifle is aimed with the analog stick, not the Wiimote. And the reason there's no need to include sensitivity adjustment in Wii games is because the Wii ALREADY has sensitivity adjustment built into its main menu. When you change that sensitivity, you change the sensitivity in the game, too.

[QUOTE="froidnite"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="froidnite"]You're right. I haven't played RE4:WE. All I am tellin is, no way can the wiimote be themost accurate and theleast tiring controller at the same time.mjarantilla

Then you'd be wrong. Only at the highest levels of play, as in world tournament levels, would the KB/M be faster (because of the very slight lag in the Wiimote), but for the vast majority of players, they'll be able to reach higher levels of speed and accuracy easier with the Wiimote.

Did you read the underlined part

Yes, and I don't want to explain once again why BOTH parts are true. I already did that with Adrian and he simply won't accept it, and I doubt he's played the Wii for three, four hours as I have. I simply found that I could use the Wiimote for longer than I could a mouse without pausing to stretch or flex my wrist and fingers.

And i found that I could use a mouse for longer than I could a wiimote without pausing to stretch or flex my wrist and fingers. And that's why it's called personal experience.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="froidnite"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="froidnite"]You're right. I haven't played RE4:WE. All I am tellin is, no way can the wiimote be themost accurate and theleast tiring controller at the same time.froidnite

Then you'd be wrong. Only at the highest levels of play, as in world tournament levels, would the KB/M be faster (because of the very slight lag in the Wiimote), but for the vast majority of players, they'll be able to reach higher levels of speed and accuracy easier with the Wiimote.

Did you read the underlined part

Yes, and I don't want to explain once again why BOTH parts are true. I already did that with Adrian and he simply won't accept it, and I doubt he's played the Wii for three, four hours as I have. I simply found that I could use the Wiimote for longer than I could a mouse without pausing to stretch or flex my wrist and fingers.

And i found that I could use a mouse for longer than I could a wiimote without pausing to stretch or flex my wrist and fingers. And that's why it's called personal experience.

That's a long way from your original assertion: "no way can the wiimote be themost accurate and theleast tiring controller at the same time."

[QUOTE="TimeToPartyHard"]

There's a point where it is overly sensitive. Even for the most experienced player. Anything faster than your abilities is too fast, the wiimote is only limited by your abilities.

I havn't answered people who find RE4's sensitivity too high because they don't exist. The wiimote's sensitivity is about 1:1. You move your wristx angle, your cursor moves y inches on the screen in near direct correllation with one another. Any complaints of over sensitive RE4 controls aredue to spastic players who freak out and over do their movements, or from people with little or no wii experience. It's that simple, if RE4's too sensitive then is real life. If RE4 is too sensitive for anyone, please point them out so I can try to watch them eat a bowl of cereal.

froidnite

I heard some people complaining abt aiming in the sniper rifle(I also heard the rifle aiming isn't done using wii mote, but still, it's part of the game) is difficult because of hypersensitinity.

Anyway, there's no point in arguin I guess cos people's preference isn't dictated by logic, it's just that they are more comfortable with it.

But even you have to agree that there is a need for sensitivity adjustments in wii games. I know it's the dev's fault for not including the option in the game, and i also hope it's included in future games.

I totally agree. The sniper rifle is hard to use, butbecause you have to use an analog stick with your off hand. Having used the wiimote and having to switch to the most archaic form of controlling a cursor, especially in the same game,is difficult.

I've never needed sensitivity adjustments, but I have pretty good spacial awareness and adaptability. I would have liked the sensor bar to go all the way across the top of my tv though, just to make it a little more intuitive, but after 5 minutes or so with any game and I'm over it. It's not even an inconvenience. I do still feel, and through study of ergonomics, and certain that the wiimote is still the more comfortable and less demanding interface, but it is ultimiately up to the player, and the player is all that matters.

[QUOTE="froidnite"][QUOTE="TimeToPartyHard"][QUOTE="froidnite"][QUOTE="TimeToPartyHard"][QUOTE="froidnite"]

My point is you can adjust the sensitivity to suit ur needs(not too high, not too low, somewhere inb/w that's best for u), whereas in case of wiimote u have to get used to default sensitivity which unlinke you some people may find difficult.

mjarantilla

The problem with what you're saying is that the wiimote sensitivity is your own. It's custom to each person. While a mouse may benefit from increased sensitivity, the wiimote would not since you're using it more directly with the screen, by pointing. If you moved only a slight bit, and the cursor zoomed across the screen, it would be too disorienting and counter-intuitive.

Again that people won't benefit from increased sensitivity(You haven't even tried to answer to people who find RE4's sensitivity to be too high) is your opinion. And the example you gave is of a overly sensitive controller, i mean if you can have control over sensitivity you wouldn't keep it that high.

There's a point where it is overly sensitive. Even for the most experienced player. Anything faster than your abilities is too fast, the wiimote is only limited by your abilities.

I havn't answered people who find RE4's sensitivity too high because they don't exist. The wiimote's sensitivity is about 1:1. You move your wristx angle, your cursor moves y inches on the screen in near direct correllation with one another. Any complaints of over sensitive RE4 controls aredue to spastic players who freak out and over do their movements, or from people with little or no wii experience. It's that simple, if RE4's too sensitive then is real life. If RE4 is too sensitive for anyone, please point them out so I can try to watch them eat a bowl of cereal.

I heard some people complaining abt aiming in the sniper rifle(I also heard the rifle aiming isn't done using wii mote, but still, it's part of the game) is difficult because of hypersensitinity.

Anyway, there's no point in arguin I guess cos people's preference isn't dictated by logic, it's just that they are more comfortable with it.

But even you have to agree that there is a need for sensitivity adjustments in wii games. I know it's the dev's fault for not including the option in the game, and i also hope it's included in future games.

The sniper rifle is aimed with the analog stick, not the Wiimote. And the reason there's no need to include sensitivity adjustment in Wii games is because the Wii ALREADY has sensitivity adjustment built into its main menu. When you change that sensitivity, you change the sensitivity in the game, too.

Fair enough, I didn't know the in game sensitivity could be adjusted, I mean someone could have told me the first time I brought up the topic.

The wiimote isn't as accurate as a mouse, but it's close enough. The main difference is that, while you do have to reset a mouse to keep moving in a general direction (high sensitivity or not, you will have to reset it), with the wiimote, you can turn constantly like with an analog stick.

It's basically the best of both worlds: accurate like a mouse, but with the constant movement of a stick.

So in summary, holding a remote control and aiming it at the screen is totally immersive and nearly realistic enough to qualify you as a licensed firearm carrier while 3D sound, ever improving realistic visual settings, and true physics have no immersion value of their own.

Have I got it?

ramey70

For the last time, movement is more immersive than visuals and physics. If visuals and physics were that immersive you'd have much more fun watching television programs, especially sports and such. But getting to throw a ball or swing a bat, is much more involving and immersive. Physics and visuals just make it more believable, not more immersive than direct interaction. A mixture of them would be ideal, but that hasn't been done yet.

[QUOTE="ironwarrior2"]

The main problem with the wiimote is the lag between the movement and the on screen action which makes the wii unplayable. the main feature of the wii doesnt even work right@!

Hir0_N

There is no lag with the pointer :|

What games have you been playing? There is quite a bit of lag in Twilight Princess.

So in summary, holding a remote control and aiming it at the screen is totally immersive and nearly realistic enough to qualify you as a licensed firearm carrier while 3D sound, ever improving realistic visual settings, and true physics have no immersion value of their own.

Have I got it?

ramey70

no, you would be wrong. luckily, the graphical quality, and physics of the Wii are above the N64, so ya.... the Wii will do fine in both areas. ;)

[QUOTE="froidnite"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="froidnite"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="froidnite"]You're right. I haven't played RE4:WE. All I am tellin is, no way can the wiimote be themost accurate and theleast tiring controller at the same time.mjarantilla

Then you'd be wrong. Only at the highest levels of play, as in world tournament levels, would the KB/M be faster (because of the very slight lag in the Wiimote), but for the vast majority of players, they'll be able to reach higher levels of speed and accuracy easier with the Wiimote.

Did you read the underlined part

Yes, and I don't want to explain once again why BOTH parts are true. I already did that with Adrian and he simply won't accept it, and I doubt he's played the Wii for three, four hours as I have. I simply found that I could use the Wiimote for longer than I could a mouse without pausing to stretch or flex my wrist and fingers.

And i found that I could use a mouse for longer than I could a wiimote without pausing to stretch or flex my wrist and fingers. And that's why it's called personal experience.

That's a long way from your original assertion: "no way can the wiimote be themost accurate and theleast tiring controller at the same time."

lol.... sorry to butt in, but he's got ya there. XD

[QUOTE="Hir0_N"][QUOTE="ironwarrior2"]

The main problem with the wiimote is the lag between the movement and the on screen action which makes the wii unplayable. the main feature of the wii doesnt even work right@!

Sparky04

There is no lag with the pointer :|

What games have you been playing? There is quite a bit of lag in Twilight Princess.

Check your batteries and transmitter. The only thing close to lag that I got was if I flew off the screen (first wii game I played) and had trouble getting it back on. More like human brain lag rather than the console hardware.

That's a long way from your original assertion: "no way can the wiimote be the most accurate and the least tiring controller at the same time."

mjarantilla

I only said that cos you claimed the contrary and I just pointed out that no controller including the wiimote could be perfect (Observe that I have used superlative form of adjectives). And it's not long way from that assertion cos I never claimed the mouse to be perfect.(Perfect Controller=Most Accurate+Least Tiresome, atleast for shooters)

[QUOTE="Hir0_N"][QUOTE="ironwarrior2"]

The main problem with the wiimote is the lag between the movement and the on screen action which makes the wii unplayable. the main feature of the wii doesnt even work right@!

Sparky04

There is no lag with the pointer :|

What games have you been playing? There is quite a bit of lag in Twilight Princess.

The only lag i've experienced is when my Wi-Fi gets messed and the little hand thing starts lagging. Also, in red steel when you get to the corners of the screen it spazzes.

[QUOTE="ramey70"]

So in summary, holding a remote control and aiming it at the screen is totally immersive and nearly realistic enough to qualify you as a licensed firearm carrier while 3D sound, ever improving realistic visual settings, and true physics have no immersion value of their own.

Have I got it?

TimeToPartyHard

For the last time, movement is more immersive than visuals and physics. If visuals and physics were that immersive you'd have much more fun watching television programs, especially sports and such. But getting to throw a ball or swing a bat, is much more involving and immersive. Physics and visuals just make it more believable, not more immersive than direct interaction. A mixture of them would be ideal, but that hasn't been done yet.

I totally disagree. Immersiveness is all about tricking the mind and senses. All of them. If I'm using a Wiimote to control black stick figures on a white background on the screen it's far less immersive than using an old Atari 2600 joystick with one button and 4 axis points with modern visuals. You've also totally neglected the point of audio. A properly setup surround system, and made useful by developers, can create more immersiveness than even control and visuals. When you are playing a game, especially FPS, and hear the sound of footsteps or gunfire behind you and physically turn your head around that's immersiveness. Your ears tell you there's something behind you and you look. But it's the game. And when you turn your field of view in the game that sound that was once behind you is now in front. You can hear bullets whiz by your head in the sound field. You can feel your chest pound from the bass generated by a firing gun, explosion, or vehicle. The Wiimote cannot duplicate that tricking of the senses.

[QUOTE="TimeToPartyHard"][QUOTE="ramey70"]

So in summary, holding a remote control and aiming it at the screen is totally immersive and nearly realistic enough to qualify you as a licensed firearm carrier while 3D sound, ever improving realistic visual settings, and true physics have no immersion value of their own.

Have I got it?

ramey70

For the last time, movement is more immersive than visuals and physics. If visuals and physics were that immersive you'd have much more fun watching television programs, especially sports and such. But getting to throw a ball or swing a bat, is much more involving and immersive. Physics and visuals just make it more believable, not more immersive than direct interaction. A mixture of them would be ideal, but that hasn't been done yet.

I totally disagree. Immersiveness is all about tricking the mind and senses. All of them. If I'm using a Wiimote to control black stick figures on a white background on the screen it's far less immersive than using an old Atari 2600 joystick with one button and 4 axis points with modern visuals. You've also totally neglected the point of audio. A properly setup surround system, and made useful by developers, can create more immersiveness than even control and visuals. When you are playing a game, especially FPS, and hear the sound of footsteps or gunfire behind you and physically turn your head around that's immersiveness. Your ears tell you there's something behind you and you look. But it's the game. And when you turn your field of view in the game that sound that was once behind you is now in front. You can hear bullets whiz by your head in the sound field. You can feel your chest pound from the bass generated by a firing gun, explosion, or vehicle. The Wiimote cannot duplicate that tricking of the senses.

ever played Eternal Darkness? The Wii is fine

/convo

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

That's a long way from your original assertion: "no way can the wiimote be the most accurate and the least tiring controller at the same time."

froidnite

I only said that cos you claimed the contrary and I just pointed out that no controller including the wiimote could be perfect (Observe that I have used superlative form of adjectives). And it's not long way from that assertion cos I never claimed the mouse to be perfect.(Perfect Controller=Most Accurate+Least Tiresome, atleast for shooters)

No, your statement was pretty clear. "There is no way the Wiimote can be both the most accurate and the least tiring controller at the same time." You just proved yourself wrong when you admitted that the Wiimote can be less tiring, based on personal preference, and at the same time capable of pixel accuracy.

And where did you mention any other form of control?

[QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="TimeToPartyHard"][QUOTE="ramey70"]

So in summary, holding a remote control and aiming it at the screen is totally immersive and nearly realistic enough to qualify you as a licensed firearm carrier while 3D sound, ever improving realistic visual settings, and true physics have no immersion value of their own.

Have I got it?

kansasdude2009

For the last time, movement is more immersive than visuals and physics. If visuals and physics were that immersive you'd have much more fun watching television programs, especially sports and such. But getting to throw a ball or swing a bat, is much more involving and immersive. Physics and visuals just make it more believable, not more immersive than direct interaction. A mixture of them would be ideal, but that hasn't been done yet.

I totally disagree. Immersiveness is all about tricking the mind and senses. All of them. If I'm using a Wiimote to control black stick figures on a white background on the screen it's far less immersive than using an old Atari 2600 joystick with one button and 4 axis points with modern visuals. You've also totally neglected the point of audio. A properly setup surround system, and made useful by developers, can create more immersiveness than even control and visuals. When you are playing a game, especially FPS, and hear the sound of footsteps or gunfire behind you and physically turn your head around that's immersiveness. Your ears tell you there's something behind you and you look. But it's the game. And when you turn your field of view in the game that sound that was once behind you is now in front. You can hear bullets whiz by your head in the sound field. You can feel your chest pound from the bass generated by a firing gun, explosion, or vehicle. The Wiimote cannot duplicate that tricking of the senses.

ever played Eternal Darkness? The Wii is fine

/convo

Does it support Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1?

[QUOTE="Sparky04"][QUOTE="Hir0_N"][QUOTE="ironwarrior2"]

The main problem with the wiimote is the lag between the movement and the on screen action which makes the wii unplayable. the main feature of the wii doesnt even work right@!

Haziqonfire

There is no lag with the pointer :|

What games have you been playing? There is quite a bit of lag in Twilight Princess.

The only lag i've experienced is when my Wi-Fi gets messed and the little hand thing starts lagging. Also, in red steel when you get to the corners of the screen it spazzes.

Red Steel just had a glitchy pointer. Other than that, and for some reason the Wii's OS, I've had no lag with the pointer where it counts: in the games. Zelda's pointer worked perfectly.

[QUOTE="TimeToPartyHard"][QUOTE="ramey70"]

So in summary, holding a remote control and aiming it at the screen is totally immersive and nearly realistic enough to qualify you as a licensed firearm carrier while 3D sound, ever improving realistic visual settings, and true physics have no immersion value of their own.

Have I got it?

ramey70

For the last time, movement is more immersive than visuals and physics. If visuals and physics were that immersive you'd have much more fun watching television programs, especially sports and such. But getting to throw a ball or swing a bat, is much more involving and immersive. Physics and visuals just make it more believable, not more immersive than direct interaction. A mixture of them would be ideal, but that hasn't been done yet.

I totally disagree. Immersiveness is all about tricking the mind and senses. All of them. If I'm using a Wiimote to control black stick figures on a white background on the screen it's far less immersive than using an old Atari 2600 joystick with one button and 4 axis points with modern visuals. You've also totally neglected the point of audio. A properly setup surround system, and made useful by developers, can create more immersiveness than even control and visuals. When you are playing a game, especially FPS, and hear the sound of footsteps or gunfire behind you and physically turn your head around that's immersiveness. Your ears tell you there's something behind you and you look. But it's the game. And when you turn your field of view in the game that sound that was once behind you is now in front. You can hear bullets whiz by your head in the sound field. You can feel your chest pound from the bass generated by a firing gun, explosion, or vehicle. The Wiimote cannot duplicate that tricking of the senses.

You're talking about end-user immersion. All those extra features you're talking about depend entirely on the end user to purchase the necessary equipment to achieve that level of immersion. But not everyone has or wants that equipment.

[QUOTE="kansasdude2009"][QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="TimeToPartyHard"][QUOTE="ramey70"]

So in summary, holding a remote control and aiming it at the screen is totally immersive and nearly realistic enough to qualify you as a licensed firearm carrier while 3D sound, ever improving realistic visual settings, and true physics have no immersion value of their own.

Have I got it?

ramey70

For the last time, movement is more immersive than visuals and physics. If visuals and physics were that immersive you'd have much more fun watching television programs, especially sports and such. But getting to throw a ball or swing a bat, is much more involving and immersive. Physics and visuals just make it more believable, not more immersive than direct interaction. A mixture of them would be ideal, but that hasn't been done yet.

I totally disagree. Immersiveness is all about tricking the mind and senses. All of them. If I'm using a Wiimote to control black stick figures on a white background on the screen it's far less immersive than using an old Atari 2600 joystick with one button and 4 axis points with modern visuals. You've also totally neglected the point of audio. A properly setup surround system, and made useful by developers, can create more immersiveness than even control and visuals. When you are playing a game, especially FPS, and hear the sound of footsteps or gunfire behind you and physically turn your head around that's immersiveness. Your ears tell you there's something behind you and you look. But it's the game. And when you turn your field of view in the game that sound that was once behind you is now in front. You can hear bullets whiz by your head in the sound field. You can feel your chest pound from the bass generated by a firing gun, explosion, or vehicle. The Wiimote cannot duplicate that tricking of the senses.

ever played Eternal Darkness? The Wii is fine

/convo

Does it support Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1?

Only Dolby Pro Logic II, which the Wii has, but honestly you don't really care while playing the game. Even on a 5.1 surround system, like what I have.

You're right about tricking the senses, but it's important to realize that quality is not that important when it comes to tricking the senses. ACCEPTABLE quality is necessary, sure, but the simple presence, as in DBLII, is often enough. DD5.1 and DTS5.1 are clearly better, but you're likely to react in much the same manner whether a system uses DBLII, DD5.1, or DTS5.1

[QUOTE="froidnite"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

That's a long way from your original assertion: "no way can the wiimote be the most accurate and the least tiring controller at the same time."

mjarantilla

I only said that cos you claimed the contrary and I just pointed out that no controller including the wiimote could be perfect (Observe that I have used superlative form of adjectives). And it's not long way from that assertion cos I never claimed the mouse to be perfect.(Perfect Controller=Most Accurate+Least Tiresome, atleast for shooters)

No, your statement was pretty clear. "There is no way the Wiimote can be both the most accurate and the least tiring controller at the same time." You just proved yourself wrong when you admitted that the Wiimote can be less tiring, based on personalpreference, and at the same time capable of pixel accuracy.

And where did you mention any other form of control?

The underlined part doesn't mean wiimote is the least tiring controller and being capable of pixel perfect accuracy doesn't make it the most accurate one.

Every time I said "most" and "least" I said it considering all controllers available.

[QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="TimeToPartyHard"][QUOTE="ramey70"]

So in summary, holding a remote control and aiming it at the screen is totally immersive and nearly realistic enough to qualify you as a licensed firearm carrier while 3D sound, ever improving realistic visual settings, and true physics have no immersion value of their own.

Have I got it?

mjarantilla

For the last time, movement is more immersive than visuals and physics. If visuals and physics were that immersive you'd have much more fun watching television programs, especially sports and such. But getting to throw a ball or swing a bat, is much more involving and immersive. Physics and visuals just make it more believable, not more immersive than direct interaction. A mixture of them would be ideal, but that hasn't been done yet.

I totally disagree. Immersiveness is all about tricking the mind and senses. All of them. If I'm using a Wiimote to control black stick figures on a white background on the screen it's far less immersive than using an old Atari 2600 joystick with one button and 4 axis points with modern visuals. You've also totally neglected the point of audio. A properly setup surround system, and made useful by developers, can create more immersiveness than even control and visuals. When you are playing a game, especially FPS, and hear the sound of footsteps or gunfire behind you and physically turn your head around that's immersiveness. Your ears tell you there's something behind you and you look. But it's the game. And when you turn your field of view in the game that sound that was once behind you is now in front. You can hear bullets whiz by your head in the sound field. You can feel your chest pound from the bass generated by a firing gun, explosion, or vehicle. The Wiimote cannot duplicate that tricking of the senses.

You're talking about end-user immersion. All those extra features you're talking about depend entirely on the end user to purchase the necessary equipment to achieve that level of immersion. But not everyone has or wants that equipment.

All true, but all the exra equipment in the world won't help the Wii create that sense of immersion. Not so with the PC, 360, or PS3. Further, call me elitist if you want, but to me a properly setup digital sound system is just as important as having an TV, HDTV (or computer monitor), etc.

[QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="kansasdude2009"][QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="TimeToPartyHard"][QUOTE="ramey70"]

So in summary, holding a remote control and aiming it at the screen is totally immersive and nearly realistic enough to qualify you as a licensed firearm carrier while 3D sound, ever improving realistic visual settings, and true physics have no immersion value of their own.

Have I got it?

mjarantilla

For the last time, movement is more immersive than visuals and physics. If visuals and physics were that immersive you'd have much more fun watching television programs, especially sports and such. But getting to throw a ball or swing a bat, is much more involving and immersive. Physics and visuals just make it more believable, not more immersive than direct interaction. A mixture of them would be ideal, but that hasn't been done yet.

I totally disagree. Immersiveness is all about tricking the mind and senses. All of them. If I'm using a Wiimote to control black stick figures on a white background on the screen it's far less immersive than using an old Atari 2600 joystick with one button and 4 axis points with modern visuals. You've also totally neglected the point of audio. A properly setup surround system, and made useful by developers, can create more immersiveness than even control and visuals. When you are playing a game, especially FPS, and hear the sound of footsteps or gunfire behind you and physically turn your head around that's immersiveness. Your ears tell you there's something behind you and you look. But it's the game. And when you turn your field of view in the game that sound that was once behind you is now in front. You can hear bullets whiz by your head in the sound field. You can feel your chest pound from the bass generated by a firing gun, explosion, or vehicle. The Wiimote cannot duplicate that tricking of the senses.

ever played Eternal Darkness? The Wii is fine

/convo

Does it support Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1?

Only Dolby Pro Logic II, but honestly you don't really care while playing the game. Even on a 5.1 surround system, like what I have.

I would care. Because I would notice.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="kansasdude2009"][QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="TimeToPartyHard"][QUOTE="ramey70"]

So in summary, holding a remote control and aiming it at the screen is totally immersive and nearly realistic enough to qualify you as a licensed firearm carrier while 3D sound, ever improving realistic visual settings, and true physics have no immersion value of their own.

Have I got it?

ramey70

For the last time, movement is more immersive than visuals and physics. If visuals and physics were that immersive you'd have much more fun watching television programs, especially sports and such. But getting to throw a ball or swing a bat, is much more involving and immersive. Physics and visuals just make it more believable, not more immersive than direct interaction. A mixture of them would be ideal, but that hasn't been done yet.

I totally disagree. Immersiveness is all about tricking the mind and senses. All of them. If I'm using a Wiimote to control black stick figures on a white background on the screen it's far less immersive than using an old Atari 2600 joystick with one button and 4 axis points with modern visuals. You've also totally neglected the point of audio. A properly setup surround system, and made useful by developers, can create more immersiveness than even control and visuals. When you are playing a game, especially FPS, and hear the sound of footsteps or gunfire behind you and physically turn your head around that's immersiveness. Your ears tell you there's something behind you and you look. But it's the game. And when you turn your field of view in the game that sound that was once behind you is now in front. You can hear bullets whiz by your head in the sound field. You can feel your chest pound from the bass generated by a firing gun, explosion, or vehicle. The Wiimote cannot duplicate that tricking of the senses.

ever played Eternal Darkness? The Wii is fine

/convo

Does it support Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1?

Only Dolby Pro Logic II, but honestly you don't really care while playing the game. Even on a 5.1 surround system, like what I have.

I would care. Because I would notice.

Yeah, but you're an audio/videophile, or as close to one as I've found on these forums. The majority of people would not notice.

Yeah, but you're an audio/videophile, or as close to one as I've found on these forums. The majority of people would not notice.

mjarantilla

You know, I think that what bugs me most about the Wii. It's made for most people. It's sort of dumbed down in a way that keeps it from appealing to a lot of people who demand a lot more. Not to say it isn't fun. My wife and I own one and the games are truly entertaining and definitely worth the $250 of the system. However, there are simply some genres that the Wii simply can't rise to the occasion with in our home.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Yeah, but you're an audio/videophile, or as close to one as I've found on these forums. The majority of people would not notice.ramey70

See, I cannot understand that mentality at all. I don't stop midway through a game on my PS2 and think, "Wow, the sound really sucks. I wish this had Dolby Digital." (Well, I did stop and think, "The sound sucks," for FFXII, but only because it seemed like the voices were recorded in a tin can. O_o)

Personally, I think that the people who "demand more" are just asking for a placebo. It's one thing to have surround sound for a movie; a movie is a passive experience, so your senses are more open. But a game is an interactive experience, and and your senses are focused mainly on your own actions. The importance of passive sensory enhancements like surround sound drops greatly.

[QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Yeah, but you're an audio/videophile, or as close to one as I've found on these forums. The majority of people would not notice.mjarantilla

See, I cannot understand that mentality at all. I don't stop midway through a game on my PS2 and think, "Wow, the sound really sucks. I wish this had Dolby Digital." (Well, I did stop and think, "The sound sucks," for FFXII, but only because it seemed like the voices were recorded in a tin can. O_o)

Personally, I think that the people who "demand more" are just asking for a placebo. It's one thing to have surround sound for a movie; a movie is a passive experience, so your senses are more open. But a game is an interactive experience, and and your senses are focused mainly on your own actions. The importance of passive sensory enhancements like surround sound drops greatly.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Yeah, but you're an audio/videophile, or as close to one as I've found on these forums. The majority of people would not notice.Vandalvideo

See, I cannot understand that mentality at all. I don't stop midway through a game on my PS2 and think, "Wow, the sound really sucks. I wish this had Dolby Digital." (Well, I did stop and think, "The sound sucks," for FFXII, but only because it seemed like the voices were recorded in a tin can. O_o)

Personally, I think that the people who "demand more" are just asking for a placebo. It's one thing to have surround sound for a movie; a movie is a passive experience, so your senses are more open. But a game is an interactive experience, and and your senses are focused mainly on your own actions. The importance of passive sensory enhancements like surround sound drops greatly.

"Many" is subjective with no point of reference. A few hundred, even a few thousand people can count as "many." But what is that against millions? What matters is when "the many" become "the most." ;)

[QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="kansasdude2009"][QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="TimeToPartyHard"][QUOTE="ramey70"]

So in summary, holding a remote control and aiming it at the screen is totally immersive and nearly realistic enough to qualify you as a licensed firearm carrier while 3D sound, ever improving realistic visual settings, and true physics have no immersion value of their own.

Have I got it?

mjarantilla

For the last time, movement is more immersive than visuals and physics. If visuals and physics were that immersive you'd have much more fun watching television programs, especially sports and such. But getting to throw a ball or swing a bat, is much more involving and immersive. Physics and visuals just make it more believable, not more immersive than direct interaction. A mixture of them would be ideal, but that hasn't been done yet.

I totally disagree. Immersiveness is all about tricking the mind and senses. All of them. If I'm using a Wiimote to control black stick figures on a white background on the screen it's far less immersive than using an old Atari 2600 joystick with one button and 4 axis points with modern visuals. You've also totally neglected the point of audio. A properly setup surround system, and made useful by developers, can create more immersiveness than even control and visuals. When you are playing a game, especially FPS, and hear the sound of footsteps or gunfire behind you and physically turn your head around that's immersiveness. Your ears tell you there's something behind you and you look. But it's the game. And when you turn your field of view in the game that sound that was once behind you is now in front. You can hear bullets whiz by your head in the sound field. You can feel your chest pound from the bass generated by a firing gun, explosion, or vehicle. The Wiimote cannot duplicate that tricking of the senses.

ever played Eternal Darkness? The Wii is fine

/convo

Does it support Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1?

Only Dolby Pro Logic II, but honestly you don't really care while playing the game. Even on a 5.1 surround system, like what I have.

I would care. Because I would notice.

Yeah, but you're an audio/videophile, or as close to one as I've found on these forums. The majority of people would not notice.

You wouldn't notice between Pro Logic II and Dolby 5.1? Anyone could notice that difference.

[QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Yeah, but you're an audio/videophile, or as close to one as I've found on these forums. The majority of people would not notice.mjarantilla

See, I cannot understand that mentality at all. I don't stop midway through a game on my PS2 and think, "Wow, the sound really sucks. I wish this had Dolby Digital." (Well, I did stop and think, "The sound sucks," for FFXII, but only because it seemed like the voices were recorded in a tin can. O_o)

Personally, I think that the people who "demand more" are just asking for a placebo. It's one thing to have surround sound for a movie; a movie is a passive experience, so your senses are more open. But a game is an interactive experience, and and your senses are focused mainly on your own actions. The importance of passive sensory enhancements like surround sound drops greatly.

I understand the point you are trying to make. But for me the sound isn't nearly as passive as you are making it out to be. In many current FPS I rely on 3D sound to get a feel for the game. Hearing gunfire behind me or to my side is a much more realistic way to discern enemy locations than visual cues on the screen (or rumble as in some games). In that sense, the sound evolves into an active aspect of the game rather than passive.

"Many" is subjective with no point of reference. A few hundred, even a few thousand people can count as "many." But what is that against millions? What matters is when "the many" become "the most." ;) mjarantilla

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="kansasdude2009"][QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="TimeToPartyHard"][QUOTE="ramey70"]

So in summary, holding a remote control and aiming it at the screen is totally immersive and nearly realistic enough to qualify you as a licensed firearm carrier while 3D sound, ever improving realistic visual settings, and true physics have no immersion value of their own.

Have I got it?

FlamingFlamingo

For the last time, movement is more immersive than visuals and physics. If visuals and physics were that immersive you'd have much more fun watching television programs, especially sports and such. But getting to throw a ball or swing a bat, is much more involving and immersive. Physics and visuals just make it more believable, not more immersive than direct interaction. A mixture of them would be ideal, but that hasn't been done yet.

I totally disagree. Immersiveness is all about tricking the mind and senses. All of them. If I'm using a Wiimote to control black stick figures on a white background on the screen it's far less immersive than using an old Atari 2600 joystick with one button and 4 axis points with modern visuals. You've also totally neglected the point of audio. A properly setup surround system, and made useful by developers, can create more immersiveness than even control and visuals. When you are playing a game, especially FPS, and hear the sound of footsteps or gunfire behind you and physically turn your head around that's immersiveness. Your ears tell you there's something behind you and you look. But it's the game. And when you turn your field of view in the game that sound that was once behind you is now in front. You can hear bullets whiz by your head in the sound field. You can feel your chest pound from the bass generated by a firing gun, explosion, or vehicle. The Wiimote cannot duplicate that tricking of the senses.

ever played Eternal Darkness? The Wii is fine

/convo

Does it support Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1?

Only Dolby Pro Logic II, but honestly you don't really care while playing the game. Even on a 5.1 surround system, like what I have.

I would care. Because I would notice.

Yeah, but you're an audio/videophile, or as close to one as I've found on these forums. The majority of people would not notice.

You wouldn't notice between Pro Logic II and Dolby 5.1? Anyone could notice that difference.

I notice it easiliy in a movie. When I'm fully engaged in a game, it depends on the game. In COD2 I probably wouldn't notice (there isn't much subtlety to hear in the explosions), but in a game like Silent Hill, I would notice. But generally, the gameplay and story keeps me immersed, not the audio/video quality.

The main problem with the wiimote is the lag between the movement and the on screen action which makes the wii unplayable. the main feature of the wii doesnt even work right@!

ironwarrior2

I notice it easiliy in a movie. When I'm fully engaged in a game, it depends on the game. In COD2 I probably wouldn't notice (there isn't much subtlety to hear in the explosions), but in a game like Silent Hill, I would notice. But generally, the gameplay andstory keeps me immersed, not the audio/video quality.

mjarantilla

So, you admit that the controller doesn't play a major role in immersiveness. Wasn't that the thing that started the debate in the first place.

[QUOTE="ironwarrior2"]

The main problem with the wiimote is the lag between the movement and the on screen action which makes the wii unplayable. the main feature of the wii doesnt even work right@!

nintendofreak_2

He might also be experiencing some lag if he's using an HDTV, especially if it only accepts 1080i signals. The TV would require the incoming signal to be both upscaled and interlaced (assuming he's feeding 480p from the Wii). This can, and does, introduce a noticable amount of lag. However, it is not caused by the Wiimote itself.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]"Many" is subjective with no point of reference. A few hundred, even a few thousand people can count as "many." But what is that against millions? What matters is when "the many" become "the most." ;) Vandalvideo

I can say that most wouldn't notice, because most don't own a surround sound system to make the comparison. :D

But the general rule of thumb holds that people have a high tolerance for quality. e.g. Most people are content with 160-bit MP3 and $20 Sony earphones, and pretty much anything over that is considered a luxury that is "nice to have."

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]"Many" is subjective with no point of reference. A few hundred, even a few thousand people can count as "many." But what is that against millions? What matters is when "the many" become "the most." ;) mjarantilla

I can say that most wouldn't notice, because most don't own a surround sound system to make the comparison. :D

But the general rule of thumb holds that people have a high tolerance for quality. Most people are content with 160-bit MP3 and $20 Sony earphones. Pretty much anything over that is considered a luxury that is "nice to have."

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

I notice it easiliy in a movie. When I'm fully engaged in a game, it depends on the game. In COD2 I probably wouldn't notice (there isn't much subtlety to hear in the explosions), but in a game like Silent Hill, I would notice. But generally, the gameplay andstory keeps me immersed, not the audio/video quality.

froidnite

So, you admit that the controller doesn't play a major role in immersiveness. Wasn't that the thing that started the debate in the first place.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]"Many" is subjective with no point of reference. A few hundred, even a few thousand people can count as "many." But what is that against millions? What matters is when "the many" become "the most." ;) Vandalvideo

I can say that most wouldn't notice, because most don't own a surround sound system to make the comparison. :D

But the general rule of thumb holds that people have a high tolerance for quality. Most people are content with 160-bit MP3 and $20 Sony earphones. Pretty much anything over that is considered a luxury that is "nice to have."

I was joking when I said that. Pay more attention to my second paragraph, not my first. (BTW, the thing with MP3s and earphones is an example. I added an "e.g." in my edit, just FYI.)