Basically. This is probably one of the worst games to use a motion controller for. 1: Lots and lots of alternate coding for the motion control interface(especially if it was also for the Kinect). 2: Very little uses that make it needed(or really wanted) for the game. Now give me a good melee fighting/Star Wars game and then I'll wish it had motion controls. In a real-time RPG with shooter elements, it is uneeded. *still thinks doing a motion for a Mr. Sandman kill would be cool though*

So.... If I wanted to throw a grenade in a wii like game... Would I be required to drop the controller?
I wonder how many people break things in their living room playing wii...
I mean, when I was hanging out at a friends house a third friend of mine tried wii for the first time and broke a vase. >_>

nope you'd be required to throw it in an arc like fashion.

I'm not trying to start any flameing i just want to keep the topic on track so it doesn't get locked.

Well let's just say for arguement's sake that the move was implemented into only first person view. Would it not make the experience just that much enjoyable. I still stand on my position that any RPG featuring this periferal makes it much more real and fun. You bring up a perfect example with the Mr.Ssandman skill, you'd never need to use VATS again .

Bethesda and Microsoft did not screw over the PS3 community. Microsoft has only really paid Infinity Ward to delay DLCs to other systems except for the Xbox 360 because it was such a popular game. They didn't pay Bethesda to delay the game or the DLCs, the PS3 version of Fallout 3 especially the GOTY edition was buggy for three reasons:
1) New architecture
2) Poor planning
3) Poor QA testing

1) The PS3 utilizes a "Cell Microprocessor". It's a microprocessor developed by Sony, Toshiba, and IBM that utilizes a much newer and advanced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_architecture than the Xenon microprocessor within the Xbox 360. The architecture of the Xenon is older, and thus it's easier to make games with. The PS3 has more capabilities especially in the rendering department with the Cell's architecture, but since it's newer, it's a newer code and harder to port with. Games are also primarily made on the computer, so unless someone is trained (as in, works for Sony like Naughty Dog) with the knowledge of this architecture, it's harder to get it to work on that system over a system with older architecture.

2) Bethesda while a great company didn't plan out releasing the DLCs and the game very well, which is why we had bundles of DLCs and the GOTY edition so close together.

3) This one I'm not completely sure on since I don't work for Bethesda, but it appears that they didn't test the PS3 version enough which is why it got so many bugs. The only thing I could see Bethesda screwing us (the PS3 community) over was not releasing a patch for the GOTY version. Other than that though, both companies have not screwed over the PS3 community.

Wow you do know your stuff. Ok logically speaking they didnt. But as a human i like to look deeper into things and question more than i should.

That's your opinion, and I respect that. BUT what's the point of implementing it into the game. Especially if it's only going to work in first person. Some people actually like to play it in third person, would they be restricted, or would the Move stop functioning once third person was enabled?

And there's also what I said about return of interest. Games do not come cheap, and in order for a game to be actually developed, the publisher first has to see how probable it is for the game to be a big money maker. This is why we get games that seem so much like other popular games (didn't Saint Rows look a lot like Grand Theft Auto to anyone? Or how's about Darksiders being so much like a Zelda game in post-apocalyptia?), rather than new and original titles. Developing this for a multiplatform game isn't feasible, because the money and time spent coding the game to work with motion controls does not outweigh the return of interest from sales costs for the PS3 community.

Again, if they develop a game exclusively for the PS3 I see the Move being included, but for a multiplatform game it just isn't feasible.

Oh, and have you ever seen Call of Duty for the Wii? Minus the downplayed graphics, the gameplay is pretty horrendous since the game wasn't developed around the motion controls.

Here is some melee combat OMFG! Notice the special attack? Even that could be used in VATS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3OD4wO06KY&feature=channel

There are actually several motion control products on the market for PC, they've existed long before this current motion control fad (And have actually had higher resolutions than kinect for a long time (but then, who hasn't?)). All they are are webcams with some fancy software, in effect.

Regardless, that's not how software development works, the game would get various details like pointing direction and rotating from an abstracted function, which could come from a mouse, controller, or motion control device of your choice, whether it be the sony Wiimote, the 360 eye, a PC webcam, or the nintendo remote control. But let's not go there, please? People have modded HL2 to accept input from almost anything that can send input, we still use a (mouse and keyboard | controller), and for a very good reason - abstraction. Using motion control devices effectively limits you to motions the human body can reasonably make in a small space. Everything else has to be done by abstracted gestures that simply don't fit along with fully motion controlled actions. No, much better to keep everything abstract, performing complex actions with a press of a button is much less immersion breaking than having to fire your gun manually, but automatically climbing up a ledge.

Move seems gimmicky, like the wii. Hasn't impressed me at all.
I have all 3 systems, and the only one I'm impressed by is the 360.. That said, Kinect hasn't impressed me either. I tried it at my State Fair, and it seemed fun, if you are gonna play casual games. So, i'll stick to my 360 controller.

Considering how ancient the engine is, is it even possible to incorporate it?

at the TV screen.

You can get any game to render in 3D on the PC...you just need the video driver to support it and a monitor that supports a high enough refresh rate. I had 3D games on my PC back in 2000 (glasses and all using the same tech they use now), and I had a Sega Master System that used the same tech to do 3D back in the '80s. It's not new.


I don't think anybody is. I like motion controllers. I have a Wii with the Motion Plus gyroscope attachements, etc. However, I only like motion control in games that are designed to be motion-controlled games. I wouldn't ever use motion control in the first-person Fallout games. It's just way too clunky even when it's done really well.

I guess some people are just uncomfortable withthe concept becoming a character rather than being a puppet master. Some people want to play the game, some people want to be IN the game, being one of those individuals myself I always make customizable avatars as identical to me as possible. Which brings us to realism. I mean if RPGs have customizable characters and stats, then why shouldn't I be able to engage in combat the way I want to?

Such as;
weilding a knife upside down because it gives me a better range of motion, or Shooting an enemy at the end of the hallway with my right hand, while at the exact same time, underhanding a frag with my left hand into an open door beside me.

As far as how persice the PS Move tracks movement it is litterally 1 to 1 in 3d space, you can litterally write your signature in the air and it will apear as it would on a cheque. Not to mention the ps3 supports stereoscopic display. You talk about a mouse's persice movement in a small space, I can't write a signature with a mouse, can you?

Once again it is solely my oppiomion, but I absoutley detest keyboard and mouse controlls because I perfer to be fully engaged in the experience.

The problem with some three D game conversions currently is that most games currently are not realy designed with 3d in mind in the first place, you end up with the UI causing (in some cases Massive) Eyestrain, often because of how the UI is overlayed and how the graphics handles the pointer.

that and to be blunt when you design a game to render in 3-D in the first place you end up increaing the investment needed in order to balance things out in order to emilinate things that cause 3D induced eyestrain in the first place.

There's a reason they eventually added a wrist strap to the Wii controller. :rofl:


(I'm sure Youtube has a vid of someone fastballing their Wiimote into a 50" LCD somewhere. Heh.)

I still haven't figured out how a huge sandbox game like this would work with kinect .. how will the character move forward? Will they expect us to actually run in place to move?
The sony move at least has buttons on the controller..

A good old controller is always fun to play with.

Fallout 4: Full Kinect support, I have bad dreams about that.

The greatest and most unique benefit of kinect is in it's supplemental use, in addition to the regular controller. It remarkable how many people are unable to fathom it.

sigh

why cant ppl realize motion sensor gaming is a bad immersion killing gimmic....

Because it's the latest fad thats not yet been released and proven to be any good When I play a game I want to be sat down in a comfy chair, not dancing around in front of a screen like I'm having a funny turn.

There's been plenty of gaming gimmicks over the years. Most of them got one or two decent games out of it and a ton of mediocre to terrible games.

Thankfully, I seriously doubt we'll ever see Kenetic/Move support on any multi-platform game. Too much hassle coding it in. They'd either have to create three different builds of the game in question and devote three different teams to the task (Increase costs and development time) or screw around attemtping to code the support in after the game reaches a penultimate build stage - and since the game has to be built around the motion sensing support in order to be anything more than a crappy gimmick, you'd be looking at extended development and testing time here.

So anyone worried about it being in Fallout 4/ ESV might as well relax

No.

Three pages? Really?

No.

Perhaps that's because it can't track you at all unless you're standing up. There's a reason commercial motion tracking uses several cameras and easily trackable spots - it's not something you can reliably do with one camera and no known tracking spots.