Project Natal vs Sony's Glowing Wand vs Wii Motion+

Mutilator7 · June 05, 2009, 02:11:08 PM

I think project natal looks really cool and would work well if they did it right. In the trailer there was no glitching or lag or anything, how did it detect the one girl steering the car when there were like 4 people around her doing stuff? This looks cool and so does the scanning of an object so you can use like a skateboard for a skateboard game etc.

Nayrman · June 05, 2009, 02:15:26 PM

Quote from: Mutilator on June 05, 2009, 02:11:08 PM
I think project natal looks really cool and would work well if they did it right. In the trailer there was no glitching or lag or anything, how did it detect the one girl steering the car when there were like 4 people around her doing stuff? This looks cool and so does the scanning of an object so you can use like a skateboard for a skateboard game etc.

The camera focuses on her, similar to auto-focus on modern cameras. It's set up to register the people it's meant to register. If something isn't registered with the Natal, then it gets ignored.

Neerb · June 05, 2009, 02:53:00 PM

@Nayrman (I don't want a quote tower):

Red Steel 2 has already been shown to use WMP pretty well, and I'm sure Nintendo's good games like Galaxy 2, Other M, and Zelda Wii will take advantage as well. And all I saw of Sony's wands was the tech demo; what specific games have been announced for that (I know they said it would be cool to use it in Ratchet and stuff like that, but what specific official games did they mention)?

Oh, and please stop saying "What the Wii should have done in the first place," because that's not true at all. Nintendo knew fully well that it wasn't 1:1 when they released it, and they probably couldn't have made it 1:1 when they released it, but it still worked fine, and this is simply an upgrade; they were not supposed to do anything at all. Heck, they actually went above and beyond by starting this whole motion craze. Starting something great that no competition currently has and improving on it when the tech is good enough and the competition starts catching up is not a mistake, and I don't see why you think it is. I also don't see you complaining about, or even noticing, the fact that the PS3's first motion controller was even worse than the Wiimote and the fact that their new Wands, like Nintendo's Wii Motion Plus, are simply an update on something that was basically already there.

Nayrman · June 05, 2009, 03:12:54 PM

*likes to note that Nintendo didn't even have a tech demo when they first showed the Wiimote*
Besides, Sony demonstrated how it could be used in games such as a RTS example, a adventure/swordfighting example, etc. Yea no official games were mentioned, but the thing doesn't even have a solid release date.

Of course Nintendo will use the WMP, if they don't NO ONE will. Besides EA and one SEGA and one Ubisoft game, no one seems to really care much about the WMP. Besides, three sports games and a minigame package definitely overshadow one good looking game.

That IS what the Wiimote should have done in the first place since the way it was launched is frankly, pretty faulty. Sure, simple pointing and very direct left/right up/down works fine. But try to do anything fancy and the thing falls apart. Look at Twilight Princess' "sword fighting". It's basically just a replacement of button pressing for remote waggling, and this is the case for the vast majority of Wii games that try to use any sort of complex motion.

Actually, in an interview about the WMP **I believe it was during one of Iwata Asks articles** the dev team said it could go to 1:1 if they did some drastic changes to the Wiimote, but it would cost too much. (but then again this is the company selling simple gyro's and an analog stick for 60 bucks, so I don't see how they're complaining about cost **end of wise-crack**).

How did they go above and beyond exactly? Of all the games made by Nintendo, only Metroid Prime 3 was built up for the Wii and actually makes good use of the Wiimote. TP was a modified Cube game, Galaxy only uses a pointer and three mini-games, Brawl and Mario Kart frankly control better the traditional way.

Besides, you do realize how the Wiimote and the casual audience came about right? Because Nintendo knew they couldn't compete with Xbox and Sony in the traditional sense anymore. Yes, both of them are almost blatantly copying at this point, I'm not defending that. At least as far as Natal's hands on demos go and Sony getting help from the guy who helped make the Wii Remote, I think we both know that assuming good games actually come out for it, both of their peripherals will be much more accurate and fun to use than Nintendo's gyro.

Actually the biggest problem with the Six Axis was that no one could code it for poop since the idea came out last minute. But yea, the six axis sucked big time. At least it was abandoned early instead of what the vast majority of what Wii games have become (gimmicky messes that control for crap).

Conduit and all of HVS's products look great. However, I really need to see a full blown big game that isn't a shooter that actually works for the darn thing. So far I haven't seen a single game that truly takes advantage of the Wii's hardware. (No More Heroes probably being the only exception). Although I'll blame third parties mostly for that.

Tupin · June 05, 2009, 03:27:34 PM

Why bother taking chances on a revolutionary game that may not sell when you can put out a game that is a safe bet and make a fortune?

Most companies think like that, and quite frankly, it's not only ruining the game industry, but pretty much every other facet of the entertainment industry as well. Sure, it's an easy way to make money for now, but it robs the industry of creativity and eventually the consumers will realize that there are better alternatives and take their money elsewhere.

Smaller companies usually make the revolutionary games because they really have nothing to lose, and have no hype around them so they can take as long as they need without higher-ups pushing for completion of a project.

Nayrman · June 05, 2009, 03:31:05 PM

Quote from: Tupin on June 05, 2009, 03:27:34 PM
Why bother taking chances on a revolutionary game that may not sell when you can put out a game that is a safe bet and make a fortune?

Most companies think like that, and quite frankly, it's not only ruining the game industry, but pretty much every other facet of the entertainment industry as well. Sure, it's an easy way to make money for now, but it robs the industry of creativity and eventually the consumers will realize that there are better alternatives and take their money elsewhere.

Smaller companies usually make the revolutionary games because they really have nothing to lose, and have no hype around them so they can take as long as they need without higher-ups pushing for completion of a project.

You do realize that argument actually benefits my side since the there are more Wii games that are basically just desperate attempts to cash in on Nintendo's current popularity, while the worst of the PS3/360 is still better than the worst of the Wii.

That last paragraph really has no bearing since Nintendo is the largest videogame development studio in Japan. Although I do understand. BUY TIM SCHAFFER'S PSYCHONAUTS AND BRUTAL LEGEND!

Tupin · June 05, 2009, 03:44:41 PM

Miyamoto himself said that Japan basically has no small dev studios like Europe and America, because Nintendo/Sony/Capcom/Konami either run them out of business or, more likely, buy them out.

I would actually challenge that claim that the worst of the PS3/360 would be the best of the Wii. Ever play Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire or Bullet Witch? Those would be crap if they were on the PS1. Still, I see your point. Developers develop for Wii because it's technically running last gen hardware and it's easy to make games for an audience that doesn't know much about games, which means they don't have to try as hard. A bad game on PS3/360 is usually due to a rushed job or lack of effort caused by delays or internal problems, not judging the audience of a game and basing the effort put into it on the naivety of casual game players.

Bad games this generation seem to be REALLY bad. There were only a few games last gen that are as bad as the many bad games there are this gen. It's not just on Wii, it's on all systems. Then again, good games seem to be really good, so I guess it's a balance.

Nayrman · June 05, 2009, 03:52:53 PM

Actually I said the worst of the PS3/360 are better than the WORST of the Wii. (and to that extent I've found the best on the PS3/360 to be better than the best on the Wii, outside of Prime 3 and No More Heroes which can hold their own).

Yes, this generation seems to have a lot more "bad" games the the last couple gens. Although that probably extends to N64/PS1 being the first 3D consoles, the Cube/PS2/Xbox perfecting a lot of the 3D aspects. This gen has basically seen the coming of digital distribution and online (outside of a certain console of course).

It'll be an interesting couple of years though for the Wii. Because frankly, unless this motion control really pans out (in which it'll help Sony and Microsoft too), then Nintendo is good to go back to more core games, since at this point they're almost blatantly pandering to a less knowlegeable crowd. Not saying that isn't a bad strategy for money right now, but honestly, if it doesn't work out, Nintendo could go through a crash that could be even worse than 1983...