Support NeoGAF

[Redbeard]

If these tech demos were so accurate tracking people they wouldn't have needed a glowing ball on the Move controller now would they?



The limbs of the character on screen blink Green, Blue or Red signifying if you're doing it right all in real-time.

And why isn't that possible on the PSEye again?

The glowing ball on the move is more for detecting a pointing device in 3D space and isn't about body tracking.

 

[fortified_concept]

If these tech demos were so accurate tracking people they wouldn't have needed a glowing ball on the Move controller now would they?



The limbs of the character on screen blink Green, Blue or Red signifying if you're doing it right all in real-time.

Uh, you do realize they're trying to promote Move, right?

It's possible just like Just Dance is possible but giving you the exact same experience as Kinect is entirely different matter altogether.

Dance Central is accurate? You mean that barely visible white thing hidden in the back supposedly showing you is the accurate part? OK. Also the discussion should have ended with this:

The devs even said Dance Central was possible on the Move, but not the Wii

I wouldn't be surprised to see it show up on the PS3 after Microsoft's exclusivity deal runs out

When they say it's possible it means that a similar experience can be recreated. Simple as that. Otherwise they'd say it's possible to make a different kind of game on PSEye.

 

[farnham]

The devs even said Dance Central was possible on the Move, but not the Wii

I wouldn't be surprised to see it show up on the PS3 after Microsoft's exclusivity deal runs out

well thats what they say. who knows if that is true or if that is just marketing talk. personally i dont see anything in dance central that is superior to ddr.

 

[fortified_concept]

well thats what they say. who knows if that is true or if that is just marketing talk. personally i dont see anything in dance central that is superior to ddr.

Since they obviously have an exclusivity deal with MS the marketing thing to say would be that they can't do it.

 

[chubigans]

The burden of proof is on Microsoft to deliver those experiences they demonstrated, but to suggest that the device is incapable of any one of those experiences is wrong. We can measure the experience only once it has been delivered.

Let me put it this way. Lets say we get an old car in a garage, and we give it one year to be worked on by mechanics who change out the parts, order new ones and so on. Now we have the car in its finished form. Based on the condition that no one is allowed to put new parts in the car if they want to continue working on it, I can say, based on the parts in the car now, this car will never go above a certain speed. It might get closer to it, but it won't ever reach this specific peak.

What your saying is, lets get some world class mechanics in here and see what they can pull off in a few years (again, only under the condition that they work with the parts they have in the car). Im saying that might help a little bit, but you still can only go so far with this car. That's how I'm justifying Kinect not being able to scan in real world objects in the manner of the video.

 

[farnham]

Since they obviously have an exclusivity deal with MS the marketing thing to say would be that they can't do it.

also they would probably want to differentiate themselves from just dance 2 that seems to be the hot thing right now.

 

[Agent X]

The burden of proof is on Microsoft to deliver those experiences they demonstrated, but to suggest that the device is incapable of any one of those experiences is wrong. We can measure the experience only once it has been delivered. For launch it looks like we're getting a taste of some of what was promised, so upon playing those games we can certainly judge those particular capabilities showcased.

I agree with this.

To draw a conclusion that the device doesn't deliver upon its vision is still incorrect, because we don't have all the data to even make such a decision.

Here's where I disagree. If the concept videos and tech sheets declare that certain things are possible, but the launch software doesn't showcase those features, then for all intents and purposes it's the same as if those features weren't there to begin with. Therefore, it's fair game for people to decide that (for now) the device doesn't live up to the vision.

This opinion could change in the future, when and if software is produced that utilizes these features. Until that time, though, we can only compare what they showed back then (E3 2009) to what they've shown up until now (September 2010).

 

[ralexand]

The reality is there almost no buzz for Move while there is quite a bit of buzz for Kinect probably because the concept is very new while the Move seems like a copy cat project. Judging from the game demos, it looks like MS has managed to pull off their initial vision in a seamless jump in and play way. The constant calibration you have to do for the Move before every game compared to the jump in and play capability of the Kinect shows that MS has delivered on the user friendliness required to pull in casual users where Sony simply hasn't.

 

[PistolGrip]

Huh? For years Sony was criticized because games didn't match those tech demos. It was near impossible to go into threads without someone mentioning something about those demos or the systems price and even reviews would do the same (especially the price). It took a long time before people finally stopped bringing them up as a way to take shots at the system.

Yeah this was annoying. I remember reviewers giving Resistance shit because it wasnt worth the price of the system. Every fking game was compared to the price of the system. Then reviewers also complained that the graphics were not on par all while 360 and Wii games were praised on delivery even when their graphics were inferior. It drove Sony fans insane to the point that we were having bans minute by minute on GAF.

 

[ralexand]

well thats what they say. who knows if that is true or if that is just marketing talk. personally i dont see anything in dance central that is superior to ddr.

Wow! You don't see a difference in a game that tracks your skeleton to determine how accurate you're doing a dance move vs. a game that requires a large pad to track foot stomps. Really!

 

[PSGames]

And why isn't that possible on the PSEye again?

The glowing ball on the move is more for detecting a pointing device in 3D space and isn't about body tracking.

The glowing ball was put in to allow for 3D tracking which it couldn't do reliably without it.

Here's what Sony patented for full body motion capture:

A Move strapped to each of your limbs. Pretty ridiculous right? Kinect does that with no glowing balls needed.

Dance Central is accurate? You mean that barely visible white thing is the accurate part? I don't think you know what accurate means. Also the discussion should have ended with this:
.

You may not have noticed on Dance Central videos but each limb lights up a certain color periodically to show if you're doing the dances correctly or not.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Yeah this was annoying. I remember reviewers giving Resistance shit because it wasnt worth the price of the system. Every fking game was compared to the price of the system. Then reviewers also complained that the graphics were not on par all while 360 and Wii games were praised on delivery even when their graphics were inferior. It drove Sony fans insane to the point that we were having bans minute by minute on GAF.

I think a lot of the problem was that the games were being held to Sony's own standard of hype at the time not to mention the general thinking on GAF that the PS3 would just be the next PS2. Next gen starts when we say and so forth, 5 million with no games, rumble last gen tech, and so on. Sony even acknowledged at a later point that they were partially to blame for the backlash they got a launch.

The gamers you mentioned getting banned where the ones blindly defending rather than looking at it from logical perspective at the time. I don't need to post Wollen's drawing of the pick up trucks coming across the finish line...

 

[Firewire]

Someone has been falling for MS's faked video's obviously.

 

[Afrikan]

The gamers you mentioned getting banned where the ones blindly defending rather than looking at it from logical perspective at the time. I don't need to post Wollen's drawing of the pick up trucks coming across the finish line...

that wasn't Wollen.

 

[Argyle]

The glowing ball was put in to allow for 3D tracking which it couldn't do reliably without it.

Here's what Sony patented for full body motion capture:

A Move strapped to each of your limbs. Pretty ridiculous right? Kinect does that with no glowing balls needed.



You may not have noticed on Dance Central videos but each limb lights up a certain color periodically to show if you're doing the dances correctly or not.

When did they add this feedback to Dance Central?

 

[ralexand]

When did they add this feedback to Dance Central?

Always been there.

 

[farnham]

Wow! You don't see a difference in a game that tracks your skeleton to determine how accurate you're doing a dance move vs. a game that requires a large pad to track foot stomps. Really!

yes in terms of gameplay DDR is perfectly serviceable. and a lot easier to understand.

maybe dance central has better tech. but gameplaywise i dont see any superiority.

 

[fortified_concept]

You may not have noticed on Dance Central videos but each limb lights up a certain color periodically to show if you're doing the dances correctly or not.

It's still not what accurate means. Accurate would mean that the camera is 3D tracking your entire body and showing it a detailed 3D model on screen not a barely visible white ghost. Guessing if you did the move correctly is not accurate and I'm sure it's something even the simplest of cameras could do. Afrerall that's the problem with Kinect. It can only do casual games and casual games don't need accuracy, they need a good gimmick and casuals will be all over them.

 

[ralexand]

yes in terms of gameplay DDR is perfectly serviceable. and a lot easier to understand.

maybe dance central has better tech. but gameplaywise i dont see any superiority.

Well in terms of gameplay pong is serviceable but that doesn't mean there are games more compelling because of their control mechanism.

 

[Argyle]

Always been there.

No, I played it at E3. The silhouette in the small window changes color so you can tell if the system is tracking you correctly. The only gameplay feedback you get is the colored flash under the 3d animated character, which is delayed by about 100ms.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

that wasn't Wollen.

Yes it was actually.

 

[ralexand]

It's still not what accurate means. Accurate would mean that the camera is 3D tracking your entire body and showing it a detailed 3D model on screen not a barely visible white ghost. Guessing if you did the move correctly is not accurate and I'm sure it's something even the simplest of cameras could do. Afrerall that's the problem with Kinect. It can only do casual games and casual games don't need accuracy, they need a good gimmick and casuals will be all over them.

Have you played the game? Do you know what its doing behind the scenes? Lack of a 3D model doesn't mean its not doing 3d skeletal tracking. Don't see how you can get an accurate read on what people are doing just by looking at a blob of 2D pixels? Can someone who has played the game weigh in?

 

[Flachmatuch]

When companies are making copycat games it doesn't mean you're creative, most of the time it means you made a ton of cash and they want a piece of the action. I still haven't met someone btw that can sufficiently explain to me what's creative or genius in a game as simple as Wii Sports or any casual games.

They copy an idea that wasn't there before, a result of some kind of creativity. And creativity is not exactly easy to explain, it takes a while for people to be able to do that, for practically everything.

They might be fun for awhile, yes, because you can play them even with a monkey and they're simple as hell which means you don't usually have to use your brain which makes it even easier to pick up and play, but making an art of the lowest common denominator to attract more idiots (to avoid a strawman I'll say it now that I'm not implying everyone who plays these games is an idiot) and make more cash doesn't equal creativity.

You're being really offensive, you know. If you don't think "everyone" who plays them is an idiot, why are you even using the word? Maybe because you think the majority of them are? (How many?) This is not a strawman btw, it doesn't become one because you call it so, you're actually - despite saying you aren't - claiming that people playing the Wii are (mostly) idiots. If you think people who play these games are dumb and so on, you should say that, and that's quite obviously the claim your whole argument is resting upon: that Wii games are for "simpler" people. You don't even make any other argument, you're only talking about the inferiority of people playing Wii games. If this is not a strawman, you could probably explain your argument without demeaning people who like these games, no?

Anyway, what you're saying is not very insightful: older people play the Wii because they're older and thus often "mature" - and not in the "likes and is allowed to watch porn and horror" sense that a lot of people confuse with maturity - and the silly stuff that interests teenagers is behind them, they just want the pure mechanical and gameplay fun of these games. Remember that feeling from Pong or Horace goes Skiing or an early Breakout clone? That's why they're creative and successful - the layers of the specialist "gaming" culture are mostly stripped from the games, and what remains is a purer form of gameplay. Wii Sports is not as sophisticated in terms of gameplay as proper fighting games etc, but it's certainly not primitive (and Resort is quite a bit better).

People play these games because they don't require useless and elitist "gaming culture" knowledge to get into, and that's a part of their creativity. They don't have dumb adolescent-oriented stories, they're mostly neutral and inoffensive (although this is true for almost all Nintendo games). They don't require a complicated controller with a lot of conventions that take a long time to learn. You can play them together with other people, not online but in the same room, and have some physical fun in a relatively small space. Simplicity doesn't really mean they're not creative, just the opposite.

If that were the case Michael Bay would be the most creative director.

Michael Bay could never create something like Wii Sports. He'd be way closer to Gears or maybe Uncharted at best. Those are the real lowest common denominator games, the Modern Warfares and Dante's Infernos, not Wii Sports.

Simply said, you seem to be mistaking simplicity for lack of creativity, and that's a pretty big mistake.

 

[farnham]

Well in terms of gameplay pong is serviceable but that doesn't mean there are games more compelling because of their control mechanism.

with DDR you can do very creative stuff as you only have to meet the 4 directions within a certain time. it doesnt matter if you do it with your hands or your feet. in dance central you have to move in a specific way.

i dont know but ddr seems to be a lot more compelling to me.

stuff like this is not possible on dance central (this is a ddr clone called pump)

 

[ralexand]

No, I played it at E3. The silhouette in the small window changes color so you can tell if the system is tracking you correctly. The only gameplay feedback you get is the colored flash under the 3d animated character, which is delayed by about 100ms.

Do you feel the game was tracking your movement accurately? Could you spaz out and still get a decent score?

 

[PSGames]

No, I played it at E3. The silhouette in the small window changes color so you can tell if the system is tracking you correctly. The only gameplay feedback you get is the colored flash under the 3d animated character, which is delayed by about 100ms.

Good lord it's amazing how ignorant most people are and you even played it!

Here's a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-iKWe-U9bY

Notice the characters on-screen arms or legs glow red when they do it incorrectly?

That has been there since E3! I played it myself at E3 and it definitely works!

 

[ralexand]

with DDR you can do very creative stuff as you only have to meet the 4 directions within a certain time. it doesnt matter if you do it with your hands or your feet. in dance central you have to move in a specific way.

i dont know but ddr seems to be a lot more compelling to me.

stuff like this is not possible on dance central (this is a ddr clone called pump)

I prefer something that measures specificity vs. something that allows you to do random stuff.

 

[Sydle]

Here's where I disagree. If the concept videos and tech sheets declare that certain things are possible, but the launch software doesn't showcase those features, then for all intents and purposes it's the same as if those features weren't there to begin with. Therefore, it's fair game for people to decide that (for now) the device doesn't live up to the vision.

This opinion could change in the future, when and if software is produced that utilizes these features. Until that time, though, we can only compare what they showed back then (E3 2009) to what they've shown up until now (September 2010).

It's incorrect to measure Kinect up against the overall vision at this time. It's like drawing conclusions on a movie when you've only seen previews, or an album when you've only heard clips of a handful of songs, or a book when you've read the dust jacket. I'd like to think that a forum full of gamers know that it takes time before we see hardware potential realized (especially Sony fans).

The only conclusion that I can come to at this time about Kinect is that the launch games are not taking full advantage of the hardware based on the target concepts. Keep in mind that I wasn't so naive as to believe that we were going to see everything at launch. There's no way to draw conclusions on a product meeting its vision before it's run its course (to success or failure).

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to compare Move to Kinect in terms of vision, because Sony didn't really share one (did I miss something?). They showed games in development instead of technology concepts. Frankly, they didn't reach very far given that it was already a proven successful concept thanks to Nintendo.

It was stupid to compare the two devices based on their vision. I don't think they share very many characteristics on any level, from the business plan to the hardware itself, so it's apples to oranges. If any thing, the author could have written about the characterstic values within the main launch titles and the overall value of their respective portfolios.

 

[ralexand]

Good lord it's amazing how ignorant most people are and you even played it!

Here's a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-iKWe-U9bY

Notice the characters on-screen arms or legs glow red when they do it incorrectly?

That has been there since E3! I played it myself at E3 and it definitely works!

I missed it. Choboooo! droool

 

[Shurs]

Good lord it's amazing how ignorant most people are and you even played it!

Here's a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-iKWe-U9bY

Notice the characters on-screen arms or legs glow red when they do it incorrectly?

That has been there since E3! I played it myself at E3 and it definitely works!

Chobot is amazing looking.

 

[PSGames]

I missed it. Choboooo! droool

Chobot is amazing looking.

Ok this is something I think we can all agree on

 

[ralexand]

:lol Wow, agreement in a Kinect thread.

 

[Sydle]

Let me put it this way. Lets say we get an old car in a garage, and we give it one year to be worked on by mechanics who change out the parts, order new ones and so on. Now we have the car in its finished form. Based on the condition that no one is allowed to put new parts in the car if they want to continue working on it, I can say, based on the parts in the car now, this car will never go above a certain speed. It might get closer to it, but it won't ever reach this specific peak.

What your saying is, lets get some world class mechanics in here and see what they can pull off in a few years (again, only under the condition that they work with the parts they have in the car). Im saying that might help a little bit, but you still can only go so far with this car. That's how I'm justifying Kinect not being able to scan in real world objects in the manner of the video.

Game devices are part hardware part software. We know one of them continues to improve as developers learn to take advantage of the hardware over its lifecycle. Your analogy doesn't work.

 

[gofreak]

It's a moot point really, but I wouldn't hold Sony's efforts out as the state of the art in 2D body tracking. Not by a long shot.

Monocular 2D tracking remains an active area of research, and some of the more recent stuff is really quite good.

Of course, no one is going to argue that z data isn't very helpful. Nor would I necessarily place much faith in Sony building out its body tracking libs for PSeye to a state of the art level.

 

[DrXym]

The glowing ball was put in to allow for 3D tracking which it couldn't do reliably without it.

Here's what Sony patented for full body motion capture:

A Move strapped to each of your limbs. Pretty ridiculous right? Kinect does that with no glowing balls needed.



You may not have noticed on Dance Central videos but each limb lights up a certain color periodically to show if you're doing the dances correctly or not.

More likely they described it like that to make their patent as broad as possible. I.e to stop someone else producing a ball based motion detection where the ball was not on the end of the sensor but somewhere else.

 

[Redbeard]

From those videos, as far as I can tell, NOTHING in dance central requires 3D body tracking

You just need a 2D silhouette and the software does all the processing to determine if that 2D silhouette matches the movement requested on screen.

And again, there's no need for accurate tracking here. The idea is to just have the general movement of the player recognized and feedback given to the player that they've accomplished a certain gesture.

 

[yurinka]

It's not mapping you 1:1 it's tracking you 1:1.



Yes and it looks like absolute ass in comparison to Dance Central. People are so clueless in this thread it's ridiculous. :lol

Continue with the blind Kinect hate folks. I've played the thing several times and with several games. The thing is honestly amazingly precise and I'll be one of the first ones to grab one at launch.

Both games are really forgiving when tracking how the player dances, and check only the main movements (like crouching, moving left, shaking the hands in certain wave, etc). They doesn't need to track 1:1 because it would be too hard to play.

Dance Central gameplay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3lhpVp3LLA

At 0:39, the avatar starts doing sidesteps. The circle under it remains red until the girl does sidestep, then it turns green. It's awarded as "good" or "bad", considering the main action of the movement.

The avatar dances for itself, it isn't tracking you. You have to mimic what the avatar does, and you get an score according to that.

A Kinect example of a game that tracked you 1:1 was the first minigame they showed, the one you had to hit red balls with your body. In that game, the avatar's movements were mapped 1:1 to your body movements.

Singstar dance gameplay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owNcjg9Ge74

You have the bars in the middle of the screen to know how are you singing and how you have to dance.

In the top right corner you have (from left to right) the scores of:
-Performance singing
-Performance dancing (red player)
-Performance dancing (blue player)

Both dancing player's Move throw sparkles when it's considering a good performance.

Since it uses the camera to enhace the feedback in graphics doesn't look as good as Dance Central, but it also features 4 multiplayer player off-line singing and dancing, on-line multiplayer or to create playlists for the game using the PSP, to upload videos with your performance to be rated by the community and voice recognition for menu navigation.

 

[Flachmatuch]

It's incorrect to measure Kinect up against the overall vision at this time. It's like drawing conclusions on a movie when you've only seen previews, or an album when you've only heard clips of a handful of songs, or a book when you've read the dust jacket. I'd like to think that a forum full of gamers know that it takes time before we see hardware potential realized (especially Sony fans).

The only conclusion that I can come to at this time about Kinect is that the launch games are not taking full advantage of the hardware based on the target concepts. Keep in mind that I wasn't so naive as to believe that we were going to see everything at launch. There's no way to draw conclusions on a product meeting its vision before it's run its course (to success or failure).

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to compare Move to Kinect in terms of vision, because Sony didn't really share one (did I miss something?). They showed games in development instead of technology concepts. Frankly, they didn't reach very far given that it was already a proven successful concept thanks to Nintendo.

It was stupid to compare the two devices based on their vision. I don't think they share very many characteristics on any level, from the business plan to the hardware itself, so it's apples to oranges. If any thing, the author could have written about the characterstic values within the main launch titles and the overall value of their respective portfolios.

I think Kinect had a very Western type corporate "vision", created by mostly marketing and PR people. Which is worth about as much as all the Bill Gates "vision" things he used to do, on intelligent homes and whatnot - all of them mostly missing the point on anything that's not a copy of a competing product. Anyway, it'll certainly be awesome for dancing games and for fitness stuff maybe.

Sony, on the other hand, seems to have no such "vision" at all, it looks like they just had some cool technology research and some good people pushing it, and they hope it sticks, at least that's what it looks like to me (who knows nothing about this). Still, as long as it's a better Wiimote with some hd shooter support, I'm personally super interested.

Obviously neither company has a really insightful strategy, based on the understanding of the market, the way Nintendo had with the DS and the Wii, not even close, so the word isn't really applicable. Sony is trying to stay on the surface, while Microsoft is doing what they always do (but worse and worse...the glory days of being the prototypical evil company trying to take over the world seem to be over for them).

 

[Argyle]

Good lord it's amazing how ignorant most people are and you even played it!

Here's a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-iKWe-U9bY

Notice the characters on-screen arms or legs glow red when they do it incorrectly?

That has been there since E3! I played it myself at E3 and it definitely works!

That video is from last week. Go back and watch the videos from E3, that is something they added recently (and it is a good feature, if it works correctly.)

ralexand, I only got to play it once, so I only tried to play it well instead of trying to break the game.

 

[fortified_concept]

You're being really offensive, you know. If you don't think "everyone" who plays them is an idiot, why are you even using the word? Maybe because you think the majority of them are? (How many?) This is not a strawman btw, it doesn't become one because you call it so, you're actually - despite saying you aren't - claiming that people playing the Wii are (mostly) idiots. If you think people who play these games are dumb and so on, you should say that, and that's quite obviously the claim your whole argument is resting upon: that Wii games are for "simpler" people. You don't even make any other argument, you're only talking about the inferiority of people playing Wii games. If this is not a strawman, you could probably explain your argument without demeaning people who like these games, no?

Anyway, what you're saying is not very insightful: older people play the Wii because they're older and thus often "mature" - and not in the "likes and is allowed to watch porn and horror" sense that a lot of people confuse with maturity - and the silly stuff that interests teenagers is behind them, they just want the pure mechanical and gameplay fun of these games. Remember that feeling from Pong or Horace goes Skiing or an early Breakout clone? That's why they're creative and successful - the layers of the specialist "gaming" culture are mostly stripped from the games, and what remains is a purer form of gameplay. Wii Sports is not as sophisticated in terms of gameplay as proper fighting games etc, but it's certainly not primitive (and Resort is quite a bit better).

People play these games because they don't require useless and elitist "gaming culture" knowledge to get into, and that's a part of their creativity. They don't have dumb adolescent-oriented stories, they're mostly neutral and inoffensive (although this is true for almost all Nintendo games). They don't require a complicated controller with a lot of conventions that take a long time to learn. You can play them together with other people, not online but in the same room, and have some physical fun in a relatively small space. Simplicity doesn't really mean they're not creative, just the opposite.

What's so difficult about making the distinction? I watch Grey's Anatomy when I'm tired and don't want to use my brain but the show obviously owes its success on the fact that it targeted at idiots who wouldn't be able to understand something of quality because it would be too complicated for them. It's called lowest common denominator because it accessible even to the simplest of minds.

As for the rest, I appreciate your effort to belittle everything that makes a modern quality game in your effort to prove that Wii Sports is some kind of revelation but sorry I'm not convinced. The experience the "complicated" Bioshock gave me cannot even be compared with Wii Sports. Videogames have evolved for the better, they're now more complex but also much more rewarding and I think you have to deal with it instead of hoping for the industry to go back to Tetris.

 

[DSN2K]

No

because I have no interest in either, to me that says they are 2 products that dont justify their existence.

 

[Shurs]

No

because I have no interest in either, to me that says they are 2 products that dont justify their existence.

Maybe they're not meant for you. It doesn't mean that their visions aren't being met.

 

[Flachmatuch]

What's so difficult about making the distinction? I watch Grey's Anatomy when I'm tired and don't want to use my brain but the show obviously owes its success on the fact that it targeted at idiots who wouldn't be able to understand something of quality because it would be too complicated for them. It's called lowest common denominator because it accessible even to the simplest of minds.

Because Modern Warfare and Dante's Inferno are so sophisticated? What are you smoking? They can also be played by anyone - it's the juvenile setting and topic and the pure aggression that most mature people also consider juvenile that hinders them.

As for the rest, I appreciate your effort to belittle everything that makes a quality game in your effort to prove that Wii Sports is some kind of revelation but sorry I'm not convinced. The experience the "complicated" Bioshock gave me cannot even be compared with Wii Sports.

Well, Bioshock certainly is bombastic and experience focused, but it's really focused on creating a certain type of experience for a certain type of person. With any cultural background, Bioshock's content is recognisably shallow, forced and based on a single trick; with any reasonable gaming background, it can be recognised as a primitive and streamlined version of SS2.

Videogames have evolved for the better, they're now more complex but also much more rewarding and I think you have to deal with it instead of hoping the industry to go back to Tetris.

So, why is it then that Bioshock is about ten times more primitive (not technologically but as a game) than System Shock 2 or Deus Ex? I could mention Kotor or Oblivion or whatever. Again, you're mixing up use of complex technologies with actual evolution and advancement in gaming. I mean, there's Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress and EVE Online of course, but those are pretty niche games. The games that are considered "top tier" are mostly primitive, predictable, generic, focus group based big money stuff, below the level of summer blockbuster movies.

 

[Sydle]

I think Kinect had a very Western type corporate "vision", created by mostly marketing and PR people. Which is worth about as much as all the Bill Gates "vision" things he used to do, on intelligent homes and whatnot - all of them mostly missing the point on anything that's not a copy of a competing product. Anyway, it'll certainly be awesome for dancing games and for fitness stuff maybe.

Sony, on the other hand, seems to have no such "vision" at all, it looks like they just had some cool technology research and some good people pushing it, and they hope it sticks, at least that's what it looks like to me (who knows nothing about this). Still, as long as it's a better Wiimote with some hd shooter support, I'm personally super interested.

Obviously neither company has a really insightful strategy, based on the understanding of the market, the way Nintendo had with the DS and the Wii, not even close, so the word isn't really applicable. Sony is trying to stay on the surface, while Microsoft is doing what they always do (but worse and worse...the glory days of being the prototypical evil company trying to take over the world seem to be over for them).

Microsoft's vision is to capture the casual gamer market via controller-free gaming. It's not a secret. Sony has made no such claim on what its intention or goal is with the Move device (unless I missed something), it honestly just seems like they are testing the waters.

I want to give Microsoft a little more credit than you do, but I agree that they don't have a knack for delivering on game concepts like Nintendo. It's just not in their DNA, and unfortunately they have too many suits calling the shots, and gaming just isn't their core business. I'm interested to see how it all plays out.

 

[Noshino]

The glowing ball was put in to allow for 3D tracking which it couldn't do reliably without it.

Here's what Sony patented for full body motion capture:

A Move strapped to each of your limbs. Pretty ridiculous right? Kinect does that with no glowing balls needed.



You may not have noticed on Dance Central videos but each limb lights up a certain color periodically to show if you're doing the dances correctly or not.

I might be mistaken, but isn't Dance Central's motion detecting similar to EyeToy Kinetic Combat?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-MRi67GCoM&feature=related (first part)

Apparently the developers were calling it "motion matching"

Unfortunately I don't have the game, and there isn't really much information about it, this is what I could find

To achieve unprecedented levels of interaction, Kinetic Combat uses cutting edge Motion Matching Technology. This sophisticated technology means it’s able to track the player’s moves on screen with supreme precision. It can tell if a move is being performed correctly and gives personalised real-time feedback that is both encouraging and constructive. Over 200 separate Hung Gar Kung Fu moves have been motion captured using a leading martial arts expert and players need to stay within the instructors outline on screen to complete exercises and learn new techniques.

http://www.futuregamez.net/ps2games/kinetic2/kinetic2.html

 

[Flachmatuch]

Microsoft's vision is to capture the casual gamer market via controller-free gaming. It's not a secret. Sony has made no such claim on what its intention or goal is with the Move device (unless I missed something), it honestly just seems like they are testing the waters.

That's my point, this isn't really a "vision" :-D They want to capture and control the video gaming market (and everyone knows that), and they want to ride this "casual" wave by taking a Nintendo innovation (simplification of interface) and taking it to "the extreme". That's not really a "vision", it's a simple pattern that might or might not work. And they seem to have no idea on how and why it'll do what they want it to do, but that's absolutely normal for MS. I think the technology will be awesome and some games will work really well though, I'm just not sure it'll work overall...and if it does, it'll have to do more with luck than any foresight Although tbh this is a bit better than what they usually do, Kinect does at least have some innovation and very cool technology.

I want to give Microsoft a little more credit than you do, but I agree that they don't have a knack for delivering on game concepts like Nintendo. It's just not in their DNA, and unfortunately they have too many suits calling the shots, and gaming just isn't their core business. I'm interested to see how it all plays out.

Yeah I think they're not as bad as they used to be (and I edited the post before I saw your edit hehe), but I think that's because they're losing what made them big evil MS. They're slowly becoming a generic super large corporation.

 

[Sydle]

That's my point, this isn't really a "vision" :-D They want to capture and control the video gaming market (and everyone knows that), and they want to ride this "casual" wave by taking a Nintendo innovation (simplification of interface) and taking it to "the extreme". That's not really a "vision", it's a simple pattern that might or might not work.

A business vision is made up of a purpose and/or goals and values. The purpose and/or goal is obviously to capture the casuals by offering the value of controller-free gaming. I'd say MS has a clear vision.

Microsoft's tactics to achieve that vision are questionable.

 

[Flachmatuch]

A business vision is made up of a purpose and/or goals and values. The purpose and/or goal is obviously to capture the casuals by offering the value of controller-free gaming. I'd say MS has a clear vision.

Microsoft's tactics to achieve that vision are questionable.

I think we may be agreeing actually...the point I was trying to make was that this "vision" seems to be quite different to how companies who do actually have a clue (like Apple or Nintendo) look at and evaluate their markets. I don't think it's tactical, it has more to do with one being a specialist, craft-based, organic company, while the other is a large corporation expanding into an unknown (well, not very well known) area. As you said, it's a difference in DNA, but I think it's a really deep structural difference. Not saying that general marketing knowledge and techniques are not important, they definitely are, but they're something that basically every company can (and has to) have - you have to have a deeper, more organic connection with your market if you want to be more and want to really compete.

 

[fortified_concept]

Because Modern Warfare and Dante's Inferno are so sophisticated? What are you smoking? They can also be played by anyone - it's the juvenile setting and topic and the pure aggression that most mature people also consider juvenile that hinders them.

Yes, use the worst examples possible to make a point. Maybe I should offer as examples of casual gaming Wii petz to make my "point" too then. Anyway, even these games offer ten times the experience of Wii Sports. At least they make an impression unlike Wii Sports that is so barebones and simple that the only thing you can remember after a while is how boring it became.

Well, Bioshock certainly is bombastic and experience focused, but it's really focused on creating a certain type of experience for a certain type of person. With any cultural background, Bioshock's content is recognisably shallow, forced and based on a single trick; with any reasonable gaming background, it can be recognised as a primitive and streamlined version of SS2.
So, why is it then that Bioshock is about ten times more primitive (not technologically but as a game) than System Shock 2 or Deus Ex? I could mention Kotor or Oblivion or whatever. Again, you're mixing up use of complex technologies with actual evolution and advancement in gaming. I mean, there's Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress and EVE Online of course, but those are pretty niche games. The games that are considered "top tier" are mostly primitive, predictable, generic, focus group based big money stuff, below the level of summer blockbuster movies.

Did I mention anywhere in my post I didn't like SS2 or Deux Ex? Bioshock is a different game which I also appreciate. And it's more than "complicated" enough to make a great modern game which is neither "generic" nor "primitive".

Last but not least, I have mentioned a million times in this thread that I don't give a flying fuck what's popular (since I consider the majority of consumers idiots) but you keep squeezing it into the discussion as if I care or as if the popularity of a game translates to quality or creativity.

 

[Sydle]

I think we may be agreeing actually...the point I was trying to make was that this "vision" seems to be quite different to how companies who do actually have a clue (like Apple or Nintendo) look at and evaluate their markets. I don't think it's tactical, it has more to do with one being a specialist, craft-based, organic company, while the other is a large corporation expanding into an unknown (well, not very well known) area. As you said, it's a difference in DNA, but I think it's a really deep structural difference.

Ah, I believe we're on the same page then.