Author Topic: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution  (Read 15894 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smash_Brother

  • Let me show you my poké-balls
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2006, 10:52:20 AM »
Strell, I agree that Ian's arguments aren't well-grounded, but you catch more flies with honey. :P

Ian, how much do you think the remote control is going to weigh? I'd guess that it'll be just enough to have a solid physical presence but no more than 1-3 pounds (which is absolutely nothing, by the way). If you rest your elbow on something and then pivot your arm, that's very likely about the amount of motion you can expect for the Revmote. You seem to have some pre conceived notion of standing in an open area and twirling the Revmote around like a baton. Where did you get this idea? In all the first-hand accounts of using the Revmote I've heard about, I've never ONCE heard of anyone saying "But my arm rapidly grew tired from such a strenuous motion." I've heard "After I got used to it, it was very intuitive." and I've actually heard, "I was playing Metroid Prime 2 with it better than I ever did with my GC."

Seriously, the Revmote is not a full-body workout, it's moving your hand and wrist, something which most people do daily and without complaint. The argument of "passive entertainment" doesn't hold water because, with any "intense" game, the amount of mental strain the player experiences is far worse and far more tiring than any amount of moving your wrist and arm.

This is another case where I think you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill.
"OK, first we need someone to complain about something trivial. Golden or S_B should do. Then we get someone to defend the game, like Bill or Mashiro. Finally add some Unclebob or Pro666 randomness and the thread should go to hell right away." -Pap64

Offline Strell

  • Score: -1
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2006, 11:05:12 AM »
Oh SB, I dig the approach, I'm just saying at some point you have to take the harsher route.  I've seen these arguments countless times from Ian, let alone other people on the net, and I'm tired of arguing against them.
I must find a way to use "burninate" more in my daily speech.

Status of Smash Bros Online bet:
$10 Bet with KashogiStogi
$10 Bet with Khushrenada
Avatar Appointment with Vudu (still need to determine what to do if I win, give suggestions!)

Update: 9/18 confirms t

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2006, 11:06:58 AM »
"Hell, arcade games. Joysticks were you use your entire arm to play. Are you unable to play those, Ian? Is it just too physically demanding for you?"

Holding a joystick and moving your wrist is nothing like holding a controller and swinging it all over the place.  Besides arcade games last like five minutes until you run out of money.  Even if you're good enough to beat one it only takes like half an hour total.  Console games are expected to be played a little longer.

I'm just thinking of a game where you hold your hand out in front of you with the remote and move it all around.  That sounds like it would be a total chore after about ten minutes.

"You pull this bs in every argument - that it is going to replace every last function in the control scheme. What a load of crap. It's going to be used for one or two things at best. Again, MAYBE the camera movement/aiming in an FPS, and nothing more."

I think that's hopeful at best.  Nintendo's whole plan is about how this remote is going to attract people that aren't interested in games and is going to make controllers no longer intimidating.  They're skimping on the hardware so that they can make the Rev affordable AND have this new controller.  They haven't even shown us the shell.  Nintendo's gung ho about the remote and when they're really interested in something they use it.  Nintendo is going to use the motion control a lot.  I'll predict that almost every first party game will use it just like practically no first party N64 games used the d-pad over the analog stick.  The remote is EVERYTHING.  Without it the Rev is just a significantly underpowered "normal console" that has no advantage over the competition aside from retro games.  Anyone who owns a Rev is going to be using it a lot.  So then issues like arm fatigue and arm position and where you sit or stand while playing are important.  With the Gamecube if I'm in an uncomfortable position I can move and the game won't even notice.  With something that detects motion how do you do that?

"And Nintendo isn't going to give you that cake and eat it too."

I don't understand what you mean by this in this context.

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #28 on: April 03, 2006, 11:10:42 AM »
"You seem to have some pre conceived notion of standing in an open area and twirling the Revmote around like a baton. Where did you get this idea?"

The demo movie Nintendo released.  People were moving all over the place in it.  Plus in this example it's a sword swinging game.  Obviously for such a game you're going to be making swinging motions with your arm.

Offline Smash_Brother

  • Let me show you my poké-balls
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #29 on: April 03, 2006, 11:59:47 AM »
Then don't buy that game.

Buy the games which allow you to use the controller shell or only use the Revmote to aim (like MP3 will inevitably do).

Ragging on the idea of a FPH for having rapid arm movements is akin to bashing strategy games because they make you think too much. If the game requires more effort than you're willing to expend, don't buy it, but don't ignore the strength that these games might have in the marketplace. There are a lot of people who WILL expend the effort and buy a Rev solely for this genre.

And like I've always said, more Revs sold = more developers willing to develop for it = more games for everyone. Every sale counts and furthers the chances of seeing games you both like and enjoy on the Rev.

Because of the DS, I now know what PS2 users must have felt like for all those years. For the first time ever in my recollection, there are more games that I'd like to play than I have money to spend on them. I'd be nice if the Rev had that problem and covering as many bases as possible when it comes to your console's offerings is the only sure-fire way to do that.
"OK, first we need someone to complain about something trivial. Golden or S_B should do. Then we get someone to defend the game, like Bill or Mashiro. Finally add some Unclebob or Pro666 randomness and the thread should go to hell right away." -Pap64

Offline vudu

  • You'd probably all be better off if I really were dead.
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: -19
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #30 on: April 03, 2006, 12:02:14 PM »
Why does every thread in this forum eventually degrade to two or three people arguing about if the controller will make them tired?
Why must all things be so bright? Why can things not appear only in hues of brown! I am so serious about this! Dull colors are the future! The next generation! I will never accept a world with such bright colors! It is far too childish! I will rage against your cheery palette with my last breath!

Offline Requiem

  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2006, 12:29:05 PM »
I'd like to end this argument, if I may.

I think both sides are ignoring what the NRC has been said to do.


During the madness that was TGS, many editors said that the NRC could require nothing but little wrist flicks or movements. In fact, most of the demos previewed by the editors used very little movement at all. The NRC has the abilitiy to dull the sensitivity making it so that you would have to swing like crazy, however, the sensitivity is so accurate that most games won't need anything more than wrist movement.

1up.com

"IMPRESSIONS: A great demonstration of how intuitive the controller can be-pointing it to aim felt perfectly natural, right from the very first second, just like with a light gun. It always shot exactly where it felt like I was aiming, and was incredibly responsive to even slight wrist movements-I barely had to move my hand at all."

"IMPRESSIONS: At first, I was standing up and swinging my hand all around to aim - and my arms got really tired really quick. But once I sat down and relaxed, resting my hands on my legs as I would with a normal controller, everything clicked."
"Hey....

I'm not a whore, ok? Really.....really, I'm not.

But, if she slips man....if she slips, I slide!"

Qoute of the Summer

Offline zakkiel

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2006, 12:49:49 PM »
Which is why my only concern for the Rev is carpal tunnel.
Defenestration - the only humane method of execution.

Offline NinGurl69 *huggles

  • HI I'M CRAZY
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
    • Six Sided Video
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #33 on: April 03, 2006, 02:31:35 PM »
Remember to take breaks every 15 minutes and walk outside and do jumping jacks and drink V8!
:: Six Sided Video .com ~ Pietriots.com ::
PRO IS SERIOUS. GET SERIOUS.

Offline Strell

  • Score: -1
    • View Profile
RE:Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2006, 03:28:32 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Ian Sane

I'm just thinking of a game where you hold your hand out in front of you with the remote and move it all around.  That sounds like it would be a total chore after about ten minutes.


You know, with this comment, you've lost whatever minute shred of credibility you've had.  

I will keep that in mind in the future.

In the meantime, balls.  Please grow some.

Edit: I wasn't going to add this, but I guess I will so I can avoid idiotic retorts from people saying OMG U R NOT MAEKING TEH ARGUMINTS.

1) Do you honsetly think Nintendo is going to force you to hold it out STRAIGHT for a huge period of time?  I sincerely hope not.

2) The movie/demo reel was meant to be FULL OF EXAGGERATIONS.  They HIRED people to ACT.  They had/have NO IDEA about how the games WILL control.  That is why it was a DEMO MOVIE without ANY kind of screenshots.

3) It's obvious you don't know 1/2 because you've ignored every last damn impression from every last damn person who has played with the thing.  You'll notice NONE of them talked about getting tired, waving their arms around, etc etc etc.

Now ask yourself.  How stupid do you think Nintendo is?

You might also want to ask yourself how smart you think you are.
 
I must find a way to use "burninate" more in my daily speech.

Status of Smash Bros Online bet:
$10 Bet with KashogiStogi
$10 Bet with Khushrenada
Avatar Appointment with Vudu (still need to determine what to do if I win, give suggestions!)

Update: 9/18 confirms t

Offline Smash_Brother

  • Let me show you my poké-balls
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE:Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #35 on: April 03, 2006, 04:42:15 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Requiem "IMPRESSIONS: At first, I was standing up and swinging my hand all around to aim - and my arms got really tired really quick. But once I sat down and relaxed, resting my hands on my legs as I would with a normal controller, everything clicked."


That should answer Ian's concerns right there.
"OK, first we need someone to complain about something trivial. Golden or S_B should do. Then we get someone to defend the game, like Bill or Mashiro. Finally add some Unclebob or Pro666 randomness and the thread should go to hell right away." -Pap64

Offline zakkiel

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2006, 05:52:05 PM »
It's been said before, and it hasn't. Only when he personally plays it will Ian be satisfied, which makes this a pointless conversation.
Defenestration - the only humane method of execution.

Offline Smash_Brother

  • Let me show you my poké-balls
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE:Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2006, 06:10:35 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: zakkiel which makes this a pointless conversation.


That much was always clear.

Not sure why I keep wandering into the midst of these, really...
"OK, first we need someone to complain about something trivial. Golden or S_B should do. Then we get someone to defend the game, like Bill or Mashiro. Finally add some Unclebob or Pro666 randomness and the thread should go to hell right away." -Pap64

Offline MaryJane

  • Ain't got nothing on Felica Hardy
  • Score: -13
    • View Profile
RE:Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #38 on: April 03, 2006, 06:23:39 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Smash_Brother

Ragging on the idea of a FPH for having rapid arm movements is akin to bashing strategy games because they make you think too much. If the game requires more effort than you're willing to expend, don't buy it, but don't ignore the strength that these games might have in the marketplace.


I can't stop laughing. I'm crying, I'm laughing so hard. Ahh you gotta love the stupid people. Not saying Ian is stupid, but I just picture someone complaining about a game making them think too much and it makes me laugh. Hmmm after explaining it, it's not that funny anymore. That kind of sucks.

Anyway, I say bring on the wild swinging sword games. I showed my gf the first rev commercial type of thing they released and she said and I quote: "You have to buy that tennis or ping pong, game they were playing I wanna play it, so that I can shove you into the wall..." How nice huh? anyway, some people see physical gaming as fun. i sure as hell do, but realistically I don't see too many games playing like that. However, Ultraviolent, great, making me work off some of my beer belly, Priceless! There are somethings typical systems can't do, for everything else there's the Revolution.  
Silly monkeys; give them thumbs they make a club and beat their brother down. How they survive so misguided is a mystery. Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability to lift an a eye to heaven conscious of his fleeting time here.

Offline IceCold

  • I love you Vanilla Ice!
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE:Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2006, 06:42:43 PM »
Oh wow. I just discovered that it's "Ultraviolent" not "Ultraviolet".. I kept thinking of the movie.
"I used to sell furniture for a living. The trouble was, it was my own."
---------------------------------------------
"If your parents never had children, chances are you won't either."
----------------------------
"If it weren't for electricity we'd all be watching television by the candlelig

Offline mantidor

  • Score: 4
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #40 on: April 04, 2006, 06:16:52 AM »
haha it made me laugh how this evolve. I wasnt implying that rev will be tiring for all games, but for a decent first person sword fighting game you must do exaggerated movements, thats one kind of game where gentle gestures dont work. Comparison to Ping Pong or tennis games are not good, because those are more about precision than strength, sword wielding is about slashing fast and strong. DDR is also not a good comparison, because is just jumping, its a lot less tiring than moving your arms with fast and strong movements.


"You borrow style elements from 20yr old scifi flicks and 10 yr old PC scifi flight shooters, and you add bump mapping and TAKE AWAY character, and you got Halo." -Pro

Offline zakkiel

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #41 on: April 04, 2006, 08:27:41 AM »
Quote

I wasnt implying that rev will be tiring for all games, but for a decent first person sword fighting game you must do exaggerated movements, thats one kind of game where gentle gestures dont work.


Simple sword-fighting controls: press and release A to thrust in the direction you're aiming, press A and flick in a direction then release to slash from that direction, press B to block and move the block in the direction you want, moving the controller around without pressing buttons moves the cursor, or the entire screen if you're holding L1. The analog makes you move and sidestep, double-tapping in a direction makes you roll in that direction, L2 makes you jump, L2 and a direction on the analog stick makes you jump that direction. The bottom of the D-pad locks in on enemies (it's my belief that if you want a deep first-person fighter you still have to have that feature). There you go, a sword-fighter with only small wrist movements.
Defenestration - the only humane method of execution.

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #42 on: April 04, 2006, 08:55:01 AM »
If you're going to rely so much on button presses then it's pretty much a waste of time to even use the remote to make a sword fighting game.  The whole reason to have motion control is to have your movement reflected accurately on the screen.  Otherwise you're just replacing button presses with gestures.

Subtle movements make sense for aiming but anything else, I think, kind of misses the point.  If you're making a boxing game for example there's no point in having subtle wrist movements for punches because if you're going to do that you might as well use buttons which are going to be more accurate.  If you're going to use motion control you might as well do it accurately so that your fist is the same fist on the screen.

Offline Kairon

  • T_T
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: 48
    • View Profile
RE:Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #43 on: April 04, 2006, 09:53:40 AM »
OMG! BOXING! PUNCH-OUT!

That's what Matt meant when he said "franchises would be returning!"

~Carmine M. Red
*Goes back to playing the N-Game*
Carmine Red, Associate Editor

A glooming peace this morning with it brings;
The sun, for sorrow, will not show his head:
Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things;
Some shall be pardon'd, and some punished:
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Sega and her Mashiro.

Offline zakkiel

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #44 on: April 04, 2006, 10:01:08 AM »
Quote

If you're going to rely so much on button presses then it's pretty much a waste of time to even use the remote to make a sword fighting game. The whole reason to have motion control is to have your movement reflected accurately on the screen. Otherwise you're just replacing button presses with gestures.
Ok, if you can come up with a button scheme that allows you to slash from any direction or thrust towards any direction or block in any direction while moving, be my guest. Unless you have three thumbs with which to control two analog sticks while hitting a face button, you're gonna have isssues. (And even if you did, trying to use an analog stick both quickly and precisely is a nightmare).

Buttons being mroe accurate is just nonsense. More precise, yes, but as anyone who's taken any statistics knows, accuracy and precision are two completely different subjects. And making your fist the same fist on the screen is incredibly limiting and pointless. For a few games it will be fun, for novelty's sake at least; but any decent game designer will be much mroe intrigued with the possibilities beyond putting your hand in a game.
Defenestration - the only humane method of execution.

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #45 on: April 04, 2006, 10:30:29 AM »
"Buttons being mroe accurate is just nonsense. More precise, yes, but as anyone who's taken any statistics knows, accuracy and precision are two completely different subjects."

Inform me of how they are different.  I push 'A' and the hardware recognizes it as 'A' 100% of the time unless the game is complete crap.  I move the controller left and what does that mean?  What if I'm a little upwards in my movement?  What if I was too subtle?  What if I didn't intend to move the controller but ended up moving it a bit?  What is neutral for something that has no "rest" position?  Suddenly there's a big range of results that can be interpretted differently.  So if I'm moving the controller it better be doing more than just interpretting gestures as a replacement for buttons.

Plus if you're only doing subtle movement why does the controller have to be stripped of established functionality to look like a remote?  If all I'm doing is little movements then I might as well just have something resembling a Cube controller with motion control.

Offline Smash_Brother

  • Let me show you my poké-balls
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE:Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #46 on: April 04, 2006, 11:11:08 AM »
Quote

DDR is also not a good comparison, because is just jumping, its a lot less tiring than moving your arms with fast and strong movements.


Actually, DDR is likely far more tiring because, in addition to jumping, the game is all about shifting your weight around the pad rapidly so you can hit difficult clusters of arrows. I won't deny that rapidly swinging the Revmote around will make for a good workout, though.

Quote

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
If you're going to rely so much on button presses then it's pretty much a waste of time to even use the remote to make a sword fighting game.  The whole reason to have motion control is to have your movement reflected accurately on the screen.  Otherwise you're just replacing button presses with gestures.

Subtle movements make sense for aiming but anything else, I think, kind of misses the point.  If you're making a boxing game for example there's no point in having subtle wrist movements for punches because if you're going to do that you might as well use buttons which are going to be more accurate.  If you're going to use motion control you might as well do it accurately so that your fist is the same fist on the screen.


Ian, you're contradicting yourself here. On one hand, you say that the games appear too tiring if you rapidly moved the Revmote around while standing. On the other, you say that simply using the Revmote to aim is not enough and that the fist on screen should be your fist.

So which do you want?

I don't see any reason why we can't have games from all genres which behave differently. Clearly, one the variables the controller must offer is how much on screen motion should happen when the player moves. When the player moves the Revmote 1cm, the character or point being controlled on screen would move 1 ______, where ______ could be a millimeter, centimeter, meter, kilometer, etc. It's the same principle of adjusting the sensitivity of the touchscreen in Hunters, where you can make it so you need less stylus movement to equate the same amount of in-game motion.

Frankly, Ian, I don't think you'll have to worry because the style of the game will largely reflect the amount of motion required, and being worried that you'll only get one or the other would imply that the Rev will have a severe drought of titles. If anything, the Rev will suffer from the DS's problems where there are too many titles which look like they might bring something new and original to the system and ultimately be worth buying, no doubt giving us a range of games which will use the Revmote in different ways.

Like I said earlier (and much to MJ's amusement ), worrying that all Rev games will require you to expend too much effort is just plain silly. Revmote games which require physical effort will exist right alongside those which don't, and we already have at least one first-hand account of the fact that this is the case.

Developers know that there are people who don't want to move around a lot while they play games. Nintendo knows this, too, which is why the reporter even said that he could rest the Revmote on his leg like a regular controller and just slightly move his wrist and yet it worked perfectly, expending minimal effort in the process.

Again, thinking that games which cater to those who don't want to move won't exist on the Rev is like believing games on the DS will not use the crosspad and buttons because the touchscreen is available, and we all know that this just isn't the case.
"OK, first we need someone to complain about something trivial. Golden or S_B should do. Then we get someone to defend the game, like Bill or Mashiro. Finally add some Unclebob or Pro666 randomness and the thread should go to hell right away." -Pap64

Offline Smash_Brother

  • Let me show you my poké-balls
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE:Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #47 on: April 04, 2006, 11:21:39 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Ian SaneInform me of how they are different.  I push 'A' and the hardware recognizes it as 'A' 100% of the time unless the game is complete crap.  I move the controller left and what does that mean?  What if I'm a little upwards in my movement?  What if I was too subtle?  What if I didn't intend to move the controller but ended up moving it a bit?  What is neutral for something that has no "rest" position?  Suddenly there's a big range of results that can be interpretted differently.  So if I'm moving the controller it better be doing more than just interpretting gestures as a replacement for buttons.


Then your character dies a horrible death and you take that game back to the store and buy one which doesn't use the Revmote's motion features. Jesus f*cking christ, Ian. I've never seen anyone more capable of bitching about nothing.

I think I see what Strell was getting at...
"OK, first we need someone to complain about something trivial. Golden or S_B should do. Then we get someone to defend the game, like Bill or Mashiro. Finally add some Unclebob or Pro666 randomness and the thread should go to hell right away." -Pap64

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #48 on: April 04, 2006, 11:21:50 AM »
"So which do you want?"

Well in all honestly I don't really like either option.  I find substituting gestures for button pushes to be really g!mmicky and not worth stripping the controller down to a remote for.  I don't like the idea of swinging my arm around a bunch either.  But if you're going to have a motion controlled remote you might as well do it right and actually justify the switch with accurate motion control.

Offline Smash_Brother

  • Let me show you my poké-balls
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE:Ultraviolent sword game for Revolution
« Reply #49 on: April 04, 2006, 11:24:33 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Ian Sane Well in all honestly I don't really like either option.  I find substituting gestures for button pushes to be really g!mmicky and not worth stripping the controller down to a remote for.  I don't like the idea of swinging my arm around a bunch either.  But if you're going to have a motion controlled remote you might as well do it right and actually justify the switch with accurate motion control.


Then don't buy the games that use motion control. Just snap your Revmote into the shell and never take it out, ever.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

I hate to say it, but at some point, you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that Nintendo isn't pandering to YOUR needs specifically AND that you're a minority when it comes to disliking the concept.

The majority of Nintendo fans are excited. Gaming journalists are excited. Even developers who threw off Nintendo because they figured they were going to the way of the Dreamcast have come BACK and THEY are excited.

Given the fact that you haven't even placed a HAND on Revmote or even watched a video of one being used, I fail to see the purpose of generating concerns when everything we've heard from first-hand accounts of its usage has dismissed these concerns.
"OK, first we need someone to complain about something trivial. Golden or S_B should do. Then we get someone to defend the game, like Bill or Mashiro. Finally add some Unclebob or Pro666 randomness and the thread should go to hell right away." -Pap64