When Is The Wiimote Going To Become The New Standard,...

I guess for console players it could become the standard next generation. Not this one however. Us PC players still have the KB/Mouse though which outdoes everything in everyway for every genre. Puckhog04

Not going to happen.

MS and Sony are MORE than likely "copying" the Wiimote as an Option for non-gaming casuals probably for next-gen. As far as being "standard", there aren't enough proven genres to even warrant the Wiimote as a standard. We see this already happening with the Wii.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="waynehead895"]Oh God please no. No no no no no. Motion sensing standard would be horrible.Thompsonwhore

Motion sensing standard would be the best thing that happened to gaming since gaming went 3D. Just because the first generation screwed it up doesn't mean it's not the avenue of the future. What if people had said, "But 3D characters look so blocky!" with the PS1?

Why would motion sensing be such a great thing were it to become a standard?

Sensing of complete body movement I could see the potential in, but as a handheld device, I'm just not seeing the reward.

by next gen, the controller would probably advance beyond a remote.

[QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="waynehead895"]Oh God please no. No no no no no. Motion sensing standard would be horrible.samusarmada

Motion sensing standard would be the best thing that happened to gaming since gaming went 3D. Just because the first generation screwed it up doesn't mean it's not the avenue of the future. What if people had said, "But 3D characters look so blocky!" with the PS1?

Why would motion sensing be such a great thing were it to become a standard?

Sensing of complete body movement I could see the potential in, but as a handheld device, I'm just not seeing the reward.

by next gen, the controller would probably advance beyond a remote.

That still doesn't address the point that I don't think a handheld device is better than the controller.

I think the controller is still the best way to interact with most games.

A controller with motion control in it I don't mind, but the discarding of the controller design I just couldn't bear the thought of.

[QUOTE="samusarmada"][QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="waynehead895"]Oh God please no. No no no no no. Motion sensing standard would be horrible.Thompsonwhore

Motion sensing standard would be the best thing that happened to gaming since gaming went 3D. Just because the first generation screwed it up doesn't mean it's not the avenue of the future. What if people had said, "But 3D characters look so blocky!" with the PS1?

Why would motion sensing be such a great thing were it to become a standard?

Sensing of complete body movement I could see the potential in, but as a handheld device, I'm just not seeing the reward.

by next gen, the controller would probably advance beyond a remote.

That still doesn't address the point that I don't think a handheld device is better than the controller.

I think the controller is still the best way to interact with most games.

A controller with motion control in it I don't mind, but the discarding of the controller design I just couldn't bear the thought of.

If haptic technology were better understood, the benefit might be more obvious, but complete body movement is sort of an overkill. In truth, there are only a couple of points on the human body that need to be referenced by a computer for near-total motion control: both hands, and the eyes (which are near-impossible to track for the purposes of direct control). There also needs to be a method of moving the on-screen character (the left analog stick). You don't really need torso tracking, and you CERTAINLY don't want leg tracking, and arm movement can be extrapolated from hand movement.

The Wii is not quite there yet. It does track both hands, but only to a very limited degree. The next generation of Wiimote should be far more accurate. It might even be that the Wii 2 will put the camera on the TV instead of in the Wiimote itself.

mjarantilla

Virtual reality is what I'd say the real next step past controllers and motion sensing. An incredibly large step, at that.

I don't think motion sensing is the advancement over controllers, only an alternative.

I suppose it depends if you really need the ability to point directly at the screen, or if you'd be content without that ability. I'd say the Sixaxis gets it right, but it seems that if you don't make motion sensing your focus, nothing is going to come out of the option of having it.

Motion sensing allows new methods of playing games, but I don't feel, personally, it replaces the controller, no matter how precise it becomes.

what about something that has a similar design to this?
Silenthps

A break-away traditional controller could work.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]If haptic technology were better understood, the benefit might be more obvious, but complete body movement is sort of an overkill. In truth, there are only a couple of points on the human body that need to be referenced by a computer for near-total motion control: both hands, and the eyes (which are near-impossible to track for the purposes of direct control). There also needs to be a method of moving the on-screen character (the left analog stick). You don't really need torso tracking, and you CERTAINLY don't want leg tracking, and arm movement can be extrapolated from hand movement.

The Wii is not quite there yet. It does track both hands, but only to a very limited degree. The next generation of Wiimote should be far more accurate. It might even be that the Wii 2 will put the camera on the TV instead of in the Wiimote itself.

Thompsonwhore

Virtual reality is what I'd say the real next step past controllers and motion sensing. An incredibly large step, at that.

I don't think motion sensing is the advancement over controllers, only an alternative.

I suppose it depends if you really need the ability to point directly at the screen, or if you'd be content without that ability. I'd say the Sixaxis gets it right, but it seems that if you don't make motion sensing your focus, nothing is going to come out of the option of having it.

Motion sensing allows new methods of playing games, but I don't feel, personally, it replaces the controller, no matter how precise it becomes.

No, virtual reality will never work. People will not want to buy an expensive new interface (VR goggles) when a TV works perfectly fine. Combine a TV with head-tracking (like the kind demonstrated by that guy on Youtube), and you have an experience that comes very close to VR without the invasiveness or inconvenience of requiring both a separate interface AND open space to move.

Also, I never said motion sensing will replace controllers. But the Wiimote proves that motion sensing can be incorporated into controllers, just like how the DS incorporated the touchscreen into a SNES-sty1e controller. If Nintendo just adds an analog stick to the Wiimote in addition to the one on the nunchuck, then the controls would be nearly identical to a standard controller.

If it can thus be added without seriously infringing on the capabilities of a standard controller, why not add it and let that new configuration become a standard?

Oh, and the ability to directly use a pointer is going to be ESSENTIAL in future games on any platform.

As far as FPSs go it is

K&M >>>>> Controller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiimote

CajunShooter

When is the Wiimote going to become the new standard for controlling FPS games?
When Metroid 3 was announced and how it would use the Wiimote, Sheep made it pretty clear that this new ****would sweep the industry and set a new standard on how we control and play FPS games.Where do we stand on this?Demetri_OS

You win for the most horrifying thread title ever! I believe if that TV remote ever became the standard it would be a great day for a new hobby.

No, virtual reality will never work without a less invasive interface than goggles.

Also, I never said motion sensing will replace controllers. But the Wiimote proves that motion sensing can be incorporated into controllers, just like how the DS incorporated the touchscreen into a SNES-sty1e controller. If Nintendo just adds an analog stick to the Wiimote in addition to the one on the nunchuck, then the controls would be nearly identical to a standard controller.

If it can thus be added without seriously infringing on the capabilities of a standard controller, why not add it and let that new configuration become a standard?

Oh, and the ability to directly use a pointer is going to be ESSENTIAL in future games on any platform.

mjarantilla

Just to be clear, when I think of virtual reality, think of The Matrix.

If a motion sensing controller could be made that wouldn't sacrifice comfort or rumble, I wouldn't mind.

It really doesn't matter to me.

I do question how motion sensing could be incorporated into RPGs or other genres besides FPS without it being superficial.

I guess for console players it could become the standard next generation. Not this one however. Us PC players still have the KB/Mouse though which outdoes everything in everyway for every genre. Puckhog04

for every genre? sorry, but you are mistaken. kb/m is mainly good for fps and rts, have you ever tried playing platformers or sports games with kb/m?

[QUOTE="CajunShooter"]

As far as FPSs go it is

K&M >>>>> Controller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiimote

xxastrocreepxx

correcting? you actually made it worse, lol

[QUOTE="xxastrocreepxx"][QUOTE="CajunShooter"]

As far as FPSs go it is

K&M >>>>> Controller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiimote

ogvampire

correcting? you actually made it worse, lol

You can quote me on this. The Big 3 will all be using a control scheme like the Wii's in their next gen systems. The Wii has made too much money for Sony and Microsoft to ignore this. Watch for them to jump on the bandwagon.GoldenElementXL

Just like Wii is selling like crazy, so 3rd party devs are now taking it seriously and cutting down on the shovelware...oh wait!

Hopefully never. Not every game benefits from either IR pointers or accelerometers and many Wii games prove this point. It is good and great for some but not for all thus, hopefully, defeating any possibility of it becoming "standard."foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="ogvampire"][QUOTE="xxastrocreepxx"][QUOTE="CajunShooter"]

As far as FPSs go it is

K&M >>>>> Controller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiimote

xxastrocreepxx

correcting? you actually made it worse, lol

um... yeah, that would be much more believable :roll:

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]No, virtual reality will never work without a less invasive interface than goggles.

Also, I never said motion sensing will replace controllers. But the Wiimote proves that motion sensing can be incorporated into controllers, just like how the DS incorporated the touchscreen into a SNES-sty1e controller. If Nintendo just adds an analog stick to the Wiimote in addition to the one on the nunchuck, then the controls would be nearly identical to a standard controller.

If it can thus be added without seriously infringing on the capabilities of a standard controller, why not add it and let that new configuration become a standard?

Oh, and the ability to directly use a pointer is going to be ESSENTIAL in future games on any platform.

Thompsonwhore

Just to be clear, when I think of virtual reality, think of The Matrix.

If a motion sensing controller could be made that wouldn't sacrifice comfort or rumble, I wouldn't mind.

It really doesn't matter to me.

I do question how motion sensing could be incorporated into RPGs or other genres besides FPS without it being superficial.

a) Virtual reality of that sort still would not be practical for console gaming, because console gaming relies too much on pre-existing items in the home (i.e. the television) which are used for other purposes. It would, however, be the next step for PC gaming, since it would essentially replace the monitor.

b) The Wiimote hasn't sacrificed comfort or rumble. It sacrificed analog control, but that could be put back in if necessary.

c) A faster CPU and better middleware would be needed before motion sensing shows its true potential in action games like Zelda, Ninja Gaiden, and fighting games. In RPGs, motion sensing would have less of an application, but then again, RPG interfaces are usually indirect, e.g. menu-driven. Game genres which benefit from more direct controls, like action games and FPSes, would benefit more significantly than games that require only indirect control, like RPGs and point-and-click adventure games.

To be clear, we're talking about motion sensing now, not pointer control. Pointer control already has many, MANY uses that would benefit almost all games, some in a minor way and some more significantly. Pointer control can even benefit games that rely on indirect control methods (e.g. Baldur's Gate II).

[QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]No, virtual reality will never work without a less invasive interface than goggles.

Also, I never said motion sensing will replace controllers. But the Wiimote proves that motion sensing can be incorporated into controllers, just like how the DS incorporated the touchscreen into a SNES-sty1e controller. If Nintendo just adds an analog stick to the Wiimote in addition to the one on the nunchuck, then the controls would be nearly identical to a standard controller.

If it can thus be added without seriously infringing on the capabilities of a standard controller, why not add it and let that new configuration become a standard?

Oh, and the ability to directly use a pointer is going to be ESSENTIAL in future games on any platform.

mjarantilla

Just to be clear, when I think of virtual reality, think of The Matrix.

If a motion sensing controller could be made that wouldn't sacrifice comfort or rumble, I wouldn't mind.

It really doesn't matter to me.

I do question how motion sensing could be incorporated into RPGs or other genres besides FPS without it being superficial.

a) Virtual reality of that sort still would not be practical for console gaming, because console gaming relies too much on pre-existing items in the home (i.e. the television) which are used for other purposes. It would, however, be the next step for PC gaming, since it would essentially replace the monitor.

b) The Wiimote hasn't sacrificed comfort or rumble. It sacrificed analog control, but that could be put back in if necessary.

c) A faster CPU and better middleware would be needed before motion sensing shows its true potential in action games like Zelda, Ninja Gaiden, and fighting games. In RPGs, motion sensing would have less of an application, but then again, RPG interfaces are usually indirect, e.g. menu-driven. Game genres which benefit from more direct controls, like action games and FPSes, would benefit more significantly than games that require only indirect control, like RPGs and point-and-click adventure games.

To be clear, we're talking about motion sensing now, not pointer control. Pointer control already has many, MANY uses that would benefit almost all games, some in a minor way and some more significantly. Pointer control can even benefit games that rely on indirect control methods (e.g. Baldur's Gate II).

Not to push for too much, but, I meant specifically, what benefits are there?

It's easy enough to say it can benefit all the genres in some way, but can you think of an action that would either be impossible or difficult to execute by a controller that motion sensing could do?

Again, so long as the action isn't superficial.

[QUOTE="CajunShooter"]

As far as FPSs go it is

K&M >>>>> Controller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiimote

xxastrocreepxx

Not to push for too much, but, I meant specifically, what benefits are there?Thompsonwhore

It's easy enough to say it can benefit all the genres in some way, but can you think of an action that would either be impossible or difficult to execute by a controller that motion sensing could do?

Well, developers are making a big deal out of dynamic environmental interaction. Right now, most of that dynamic interaction is automated, like in Assassin's Creed which calculates precisely what sword strokes to make, precisely how to jump, how to land, etc.

Motion sensing, combined with a powerful enough CPU, would enable actual dynamic interaction, and would take those calculations out of the computer's hands and put it into yours, with only minor "pilot assist" to compensate for the fact that none of us are expert traceurs or master swordsmen. Well, motion controlled parkour probably isn't possible, but CPU-assisted dynamic swordfighting is definitely up and coming. It's not pure 1:1 because there's still some computer assistance, but by and large it would be dynamic.

Another example, in Crysis, with super-strength you could grab someone by the throat. With a proper motion sensor, this would be done by physically reaching out and grabbing someone by the throat, then using your own gestures to determine what to do. On a regular controller, these actions would be mapped to buttons (e.g. A to choke, B to throw forward, X to let go, etc.), but buttons are digital and limited in number. Gestures are potentially infinite. Instead of just being able to choke a guy, for example, you could break his neck by quickly twisting your hand. Or, with pressure-sensitive buttons, you can slowly squeeze his neck to make him talk instead. And instead of just being able to throw him forward, you could throw him in any direction by making the gesture and letting go of the buttons.

Another example would be magic-casting in RPGs and fantasy games. Think of "LostWinds," but instead of just manipulating wind currents on a 2D plane, expand it to any kind of fluidic manipulation within a 3D space.

Basically, just think of the freehand controller representing your hand, and the buttons representing your fingers instead of specific actions. With such a configuration, anything your hand could do in the real world, it would also be able to do in the virtual world. Instead of pre-determined action scripts mated to button presses, the small-scale interactions between your virtual hand and the virtual objects would determine what would happen in-game. It's the most direct and dynamic form of interaction there is.

However, both physics and haptics would have to become more advanced to accomplish this, and programmers would have a harder time because interaction would have to be dynamic, which is why it won't happen for another generation or so, but it's definitely the future.

I don't think the Wiimote would translate well into playing hardcore action games like the Ninja Gaiden and Devil May Cry franchises. They require precise button input, accurate combo sequences and quick reflexes, something that wouldn't translate well on a remote that relies on motion input, given its dodgy detection at body movements. If they can improve it to near-perfection, then it would finally mean breaking "sweatloads upon sweatloads of sweat" when playing these genres.Brainhunter

The Wiimote itself, no, but a more precise motion sensor would fix that. However, gamepad-based action games like NG and DMC are based on a rather simplistic combat mechanic: button combos. An action game which would be based on motion sensing would require the same level of reflexes and precision as those action games, but it would do so with combinations of gestures, just like real-life fighting, rather than combinations of buttons.

no i really hope not

i would seriously switch to strictly pc next gen if that became the new standard. seriously the wiimote sucks imo it has horrible accuracy. if you took 2 people with roughly the same skills in some game and put one on the DA's and one with the Wm/nun the DA's would win all the way.

no i really hope not

i would seriously switch to strictly pc next gen if that became the new standard. seriously the wiimote sucks imo it has horrible accuracy. if you took 2 people with roughly the same skills in some game and put one on the DA's and one with the Wm/nun the DA's would win all the way.

mistervengeance

still not sure how you would figure that, but alrighty then.

[QUOTE="xxastrocreepxx"][QUOTE="CajunShooter"]

As far as FPSs go it is

K&M >>>>> Controller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiimote

foxhound_fox

I'd rather have mouse and keyboard.

Nintendo knows that the Wiimote will never be standard, if they ever thought that they would be sure to never allow there games to consider using standard controlers to play. The best way to get people to adopt a format is to force it on them. ala button controler > Analog controler.

The N64 Didn't give you a choice to not use that analog stick, neither did Sony let people not use dual analog, your shooting yourself in the foot by appeasing your customers with old control styles if you really want your new one to take off. Nintendo know the Wii-mote itself is a good idea, and is adaptable to its needs. But they know it wont be standard for everyone.

If Nintendo does think the Wii-mote is the future of controlers they are shooting themselves in the foot by allowing games like SSBB and Mario Kart Wii, and many other titles to use a myriad of controlers, because if the market does not adapt to the Wii-more only then there next system will also require a myriad of controlers, that costs more money to make, especially if consumers are just unhappy with what is being sold to them.

Hopefully never. I can't play on a Wii longer than a half hour or so without my arms aching. I just cant imagine playing GTA etc on a Wiimote.Jenova_Flare

[QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]Not to push for too much, but, I meant specifically, what benefits are there?

It's easy enough to say it can benefit all the genres in some way, but can you think of an action that would either be impossible or difficult to execute by a controller that motion sensing could do?mjarantilla

Well, developers are making a big deal out of dynamic environmental interaction. Right now, most of that dynamic interaction is automated, like in Assassin's Creed which calculates precisely what sword strokes to make, precisely how to jump, how to land, etc.

Motion sensing, combined with a powerful enough CPU, would enable actual dynamic interaction, and would take those calculations out of the computer's hands and put it into yours, with only minor "pilot assist" to compensate for the fact that none of us are expert traceurs or master swordsmen. Well, motion controlled parkour probably isn't possible, but CPU-assisted dynamic swordfighting is definitely up and coming. It's not pure 1:1 because there's still some computer assistance, but by and large it would be dynamic.

Another example, in Crysis, with super-strength you could grab someone by the throat. With a proper motion sensor, this would be done by physically reaching out and grabbing someone by the throat, then using your own gestures to determine what to do. On a regular controller, these actions would be mapped to buttons (e.g. A to choke, B to throw forward, X to let go, etc.), but buttons are digital and limited in number. Gestures are potentially infinite. Instead of just being able to choke a guy, for example, you could break his neck by quickly twisting your hand. Or, with pressure-sensitive buttons, you can slowly squeeze his neck to make him talk instead. And instead of just being able to throw him forward, you could throw him in any direction by making the gesture and letting go of the buttons.

Another example would be magic-casting in RPGs and fantasy games. Think of "LostWinds," but instead of just manipulating wind currents on a 2D plane, expand it to any kind of fluidic manipulation within a 3D space.

Basically, just think of the freehand controller representing your hand, and the buttons representing your fingers instead of specific actions. With such a configuration, anything your hand could do in the real world, it would also be able to do in the virtual world. Instead of pre-determined action scripts mated to button presses, the small-scale interactions between your virtual hand and the virtual objects would determine what would happen in-game. It's the most direct and dynamic form of interaction there is.

However, both physics and haptics would have to become more advanced to accomplish this, and programmers would have a harder time because interaction would have to be dynamic, which is why it won't happen for another generation or so, but it's definitely the future.

To summarize, what I took from your paragraph is that motion controls present the ability to have a near infinite number of actions whereas buttons are of limited number and therefore limited to the amount of actions they can execute. Although with pressure sensitivity and button combination, games today really aren't hampered by the amount of buttons we have available to us.

Aside from the fact that it would make a more engrossing experience to have your gestures transfer over to the screen, that is the only point I'd say shows a distinct advantage over the controller.

However I think that if all you're doing is substituting buttons for gestures, you're really not improving the way we play games. Sure, at first it seems to be a great advancement, but the feeling wears off and you realize that you don't have any more real control over your character than you did with a controller.

3D motion sensing transferring over to a 2D visualization is pointless, I feel. With swordfighting, for example, you have no real depth perception. I'm finding it hard to articulate what I'm really trying to convey.

In any case, I really don't think until we have 3D visualization of the world we're playing in, that motion sensing has any significant benefit over the controller.

Like analog sticks, motion controls are here to stay get use to it. Its the evolution of gaming and the talk of only using standard controls show what a stuck in the mud conservative losers some of you are.

This is how its going to go down next-gen. All consoles will have IR and motion control as standard and all including Nintendo will be HD powered. Yet I can see them not being much better in specs then say Crysis at high settings, meaning less of a jump technologically. Yet that's to be expected, since I believe gaming in terms of graphics is starting to hit a plateau where there is less improvement every generation. Hell maybe each generation after this one should average out a 10 year cyle per generation as opposed to the standard 5 in the next-gen.

Hopefully never. The Wii mote only works with a handful of games. Other games either it use it in a gimmicky way or just straight fail at it. Motion sensing won't replace Analog anytime soon. Its an alternative not a standard.

Guess what TC: we are not fortunetellers. Do you want us to just call out a random date or something? Or are you just throwing flamebait out there? i'm leaning towards the latter...

And also, your sig is not nearly as clever or funny as you think.

TAKE_IT_BACK

?? hes asking a question, provoking discussion and asking for what believe think. Cant we speculate anymore? Cant we ask a question where people will theorise and make predictions? this a discussion forum isnt it?

I can't play on a Wii longer than a half hour or so without my arms aching.Jenova_Flare

That's more than a little sad...

LOL at fanboys.

they always brag about devs not making with uber graphics and realistic feel. But when a game requires them to experience a real gun holding feel with the wiimote they start wah wah crying like babies!!

Stop wingeing cows and lemmings. Wiimote gives the realistic feel of holding a gund. That beats your lame control pads.

To summarize, what I took from your paragraph is that motion controls present the ability to have a near infinite number of actions whereas buttons are of limited number and therefore limited to the amount of actions they can execute. Although with pressure sensitivity and button combination, games today really aren't hampered by the amount of buttons we have available to us.Thompsonwhore

They're not hampered, but neither are they advancing. Games with dynamically generated interactions, which have only now started to come out like Crysis, would benefit greatly from motion sensing.

Aside from the fact that it would make a more engrossing experience to have your gestures transfer over to the screen, that is the only point I'd say shows a distinct advantage over the controller.Thompsonwhore

Since the cost of implementing it in hardware both financially and functionally is minimal, what difference does it, regardless of how minor the improvement?

However I think that if all you're doing is substituting buttons for gestures, you're really not improving the way we play games. Sure, at first it seems to be a great advancement, but the feeling wears off and you realize that you don't have any more real control over your character than you did with a controller.Thompsonwhore

That depends on how extensively it's implemented. There are still only a limited number of buttons but an unlimited number of gestures. Current technology does not allow for completely dynamic interaction, so prescripted routines are still required. But with a sufficient number of prescripted routines mapped to a sufficient number of gestures, and assuming that the motion controller is precise enough to distinguish the differences, the effect of full dynamic interaction can be simulated to a fairly high degree.

It's attaining that precision that presents a problem for the Wiimote, but with any luck the next generation Wiimote will do better.

3D motion sensing transferring over to a 2D visualization is pointless, I feel. With swordfighting, for example, you have no real depth perception. I'm finding it hard to articulate what I'm really trying to convey.Thompsonwhore

Highly stylized swordfighting wouldn't necessarily depend on depth perception. And in any case, who said anything about this being from the first person perspective? Third-person action games would benefit from this, too.