Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim or HERE THERE BE DRAGONS

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Krylo

You haven't actually played any Wii games, have you?

Yes, and it pretty well sucked. On the other hand, this coming to the Wii? I think it would start the thing on fire.

Now the PS3 Move on the other hand could handle it just fine and is just superior in all ways. It controls better, the system has more power, etc. I was severely disappointed with the Wii when my cousin cracked it open for her birthday last year. The Move was everything they said it would be and is a joy to use, speaking from experience. Kinect, despite some lag, also works pretty well from what people say.

Originally Posted by Pip Boy

Motion control just doesn't seem like the right thing for this. Its for silly games that you don't care about. Oblivion 2, however, is serious business. It has double-handing. And double magic.

That's the beauty of having it come to real systems: they have normal controllers as a back-up. You wouldn't have to use motion controls if you didn't want to, but the option would be there if you did. Really, again, speaking from the perspective of the Move, you have several options at your disposal: SixAxis, SixAxis/Nav + Wand, and Wand x 2. Any of these options would be workable. The positioning system can easily stand in for analog sticks for movement and camera control, and aside from that, the Eye is also capable of head and body tracking for an easy implementation of things like sneaking which might otherwise be on the shoulder buttons. Just crouch to sneak. Body tracking would also be able to automatically determine laterality, so the game would know whether something was in your left or right hand.

Basically, the idea that motion controls can't be used for real games is uninformed. That kind of thinking is mostly the Wii's fault, but the industry as a whole needs to shake it and has the technology to do it now, just as much as "gamers" need to shake being labeled under a wide net and slapped with a stigma. The whole industry has an image problem and nobody is going to take it, or any of us, seriously if we don't start it ourselves.

Originally Posted by Melfice

If they add motion controls, you WILL spend time doing nothing but flailing your arms or your Move Wands.
There is no other way to add motion controls to a sword fighting game.
Magic would work, as we've seen with Sorcery, but sword fighting in these games would suck.

Why would it suck, exactly? If we're talking 1:1 sword fighting, which would be the whole point, then flailing your arms will not get you far. Or, to put it this way, any idiot can swing a sword, but it takes actual practice to swing it well. It's the same as button-mashing: it'll get you to a certain point, but it fails hard if the opponent knows what they're doing. Part of the immersion would be having your strikes and stabs and slashes put up against those of an AI opponent. Adding motion controls to a game like this would encourage creativity through freedom. And, if you get tired of it, simply go into the menu, switch it to the SixAxis, and plop your butt down on the couch.

See, adding motion controls to a game that's based on a controller is not that hard. Child of Eden will be compatible with both standard controllers and motion controls on both the PS3 and 360. For examples that already have sword fighting, both Dynasty Warriors and No More Heroes are coming to the PS3 and will allow for both standard and motion control schemes. There are tons of games that won't be Move-only. Kinect is also shown to be capable with a few titles, but Microsoft seems to be trying to force the system at the moment.




I mean, really, motion controls are not a dirty thing, guys. They offer a helluva lot of freedom. There's no reason to think that we need serious games to be bound to standard controllers forever any more than there was to think that games would be bound to physical media forever.

[Krylo]

Have you played with the motion plus?

Both Sony and Nintendo claim 1:1, and while it's obvious looking around that Sony is better than Nintendo, with everyone claiming 1:1 in 3D space and everyone being full of shit in claiming 1:1 in 3D space, it's hard to actually decide how close/far apart they are.

I do know, however, that even with Nintendo's Motion Plus, which DOES follow you pretty well on screen, and is good for things like Archery and what not, it's absolute shit for sword fighting.

With no force feedback, and with trying to match movements to something happening three feet in front of you, sword fighting just doesn't work. If your arm doesn't stop when you hit a shield or a sword, but your avatar's does, it fucks everything up. If your avatar's doesn't stop when it hits a shield or a sword, then it destroys immersion and ruins your hit detection. And either way (whether because your avatar isn't following you right or because you're effectively wielding a super lightsaber), just swinging your arm around spasticly like a moron ends up being the superior strategy.

Motion controlled sword fighting, 1:1 or not, isn't going to work unless it's something like the MGS game for kinetic, or DQ swords, where your sword just goes through everything forever and always, or we're in the super future with holodecks and tactile holograms.

And don't get me wrong, DQ Swords was fantastic (and is on the VERY short list of Wii games I would recommend) and the MGS game where you roll around cutting shit up looks fun too, but it's just not something that can work in a game like Skyrim where they try to make the sword fighting more realistic/gritty.

[bluestarultor]

Well, to be frank, Oblivion wasn't exactly "real and gritty" about your weapon strikes. They pretty much just continued on no matter what. Maybe glanced off if they were lucky and you were being generous.

I mean, really, the glancing off approach is 1) more realistic in most cases anyway and 2) easier to pull off because it still approximates the player's own motion in this case. Things rarely hit squarely enough that they just stop, and if they do, it's enough to put both people off-balance unless one of them has a really solid stance and the other doesn't. In short, there's no reason to think that, playing by largely real-world rules, motion controls could not be workable in this case.



Also, this is a pet peeve of mine, but really, asking for motion controls to react to things stopping you is low-hanging fruit. That shit's unreasonable and everyone knows it, and it's just too convenient of an argument. Coming up with solutions to sidestep the issue really isn't all that hard. I did it in ten seconds in this case.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Well, to be frank, Oblivion wasn't exactly "real and gritty" about your weapon strikes. They pretty much just continued on no matter what. Maybe glanced off if they were lucky and you were being generous.

I mean, really, the glancing off approach is 1) more realistic in most cases anyway and 2) easier to pull off because it still approximates the player's own motion in this case. Things rarely hit squarely enough that they just stop, and if they do, it's enough to put both people off-balance unless one of them has a really solid stance and the other doesn't. In short, there's no reason to think that, playing by largely real-world rules, motion controls could not be workable in this case.

You never actually PLAYED oblivion, did you?

A block could throw you or your opponent off balance (depending on who was blocking), and blocking followed by a quick attack or two while their guard is thrown was the primary method of sword and board fighting in oblivion. It only glanced off or continued through if there was no block.

Also, this is a pet peeve of mine, but really, asking for motion controls to react to things stopping you is low-hanging fruit. That shit's unreasonable and everyone knows it, and it's just too convenient of an argument. Coming up with solutions to sidestep the issue really isn't all that hard. I did it in ten seconds in this case.

Of course it's not going to happen, but hey guess what: Sword fighting is going to suck absolute balls until it does.

The point wasn't saying they should make it happen, the point was that this shit can't happen, and as a result sword fighting games aren't going to be fun unless you're using a magical super sword or light saber or something that cuts through anything and everything 100% of the time with no slowing or stopping.

Even a glancing blow that throws the avatar's sword off course is going to fuck up your shit in a motion controlled sword fight.

[bluestarultor]

*sigh*

Yes, I played Oblivion, but I was operating under the assumption that a block was going to take control away from the player anyway, y'know, like it always has. Somehow I don't think we'll be forcing the player to flail off-balance anytime soon, either.

The point is that, no, the system would not be absolutely perfect. But then, really, why are we advocating sticking to buttons? Because that holds no similarity whatsoever to the actions on screen. Maybe someone prefers buttons, and another person prefers actually getting into the action, imperfect though it may be. Why is it acceptable for control to be taken away from buttons, but not arm motions? How do buttons get a pass on immersion when they don't listen to you for a second, but when you're waving a plastic toy around, suddenly it's expected to be real?

I'm not saying it's unreasonable to say that it won't be a perfect system, because it won't be, but throwing the baby out with the bath water doesn't make much sense, either. Motion controls would be workable in this case. Not perfect, but they could work well. As an option, no less. I don't know why people are so adverse to the idea.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

*sigh*

Yes, I played Oblivion, but I was operating under the assumption that a block was going to take control away from the player anyway, y'know, like it always has. Somehow I don't think we'll be forcing the player to flail off-balance anytime soon, either.

The point is that, no, the system would not be absolutely perfect. But then, really, why are we advocating sticking to buttons? Because that holds no similarity whatsoever to the actions on screen. Maybe someone prefers buttons, and another person prefers actually getting into the action, imperfect though it may be. Why is it acceptable for control to be taken away from buttons, but not arm motions? How do buttons get a pass on immersion when they don't listen to you for a second, but when you're waving a plastic toy around, suddenly it's expected to be real?

I'm not saying it's unreasonable to say that it won't be a perfect system, because it won't be, but throwing the baby out with the bath water doesn't make much sense, either. Motion controls would be workable in this case. Not perfect, but they could work well. As an option, no less. I don't know why people are so adverse to the idea.

Because Blues...

Ok, let's say you and I are sword fighting via Move. There's three ways Move can do this.

Way 1: Our avatar's motions don't follow our movements much at all, and our avatars can lock swords, or stop a sword dead with a shield or just glance it off depending.

Way 2: Our avatar's motions MOSTLY follow our movements, but control is never really taken away, as glancing blows and what not are implemented for anything that would stop a sword, followed by the game quickly realigning the avatar to the player.

Way 3: Our avatar's motions exactly follow our movements and there's no impact or whatever shown when our blades hit each other or shields or anything else.

Issue with way 1: You attack, I block, your arm is still going this way, your character's sword is going that way, I make short work of you while you've lost all control, not because of a game mechanic--but because of a controller issue. The alternate is equally possible, I attack, you block, my arm follows through, my character's doesn't, this basically has the effect of throwing me horribly off balance when I shouldn't be, and you kill me. It doesn't really matter how much we dedicate ourselves to these attacks, except lesser dedication is only going to mean getting run through once while there's the difference between avatar and real life you instead of slashed five times or whatever.

Issue with way 2: You try to take this shit serious, I just flail my arm at you like a retarded spaz. My sword is moving way more than yours ever could, I'm not getting tired or being slowed by the weight and heft of the sword, and there's no way you're going to block all my motions, and I wittle you down. You maybe get a few attacks in here and there during the half second retransition, but I'm still attacking faster than you and chances are I'll come out on top.

Issue with way 3: Pretty much exactly the same as way 2, except worse because now you're going to have an even harder time following my avatar's motions to try to stop attacks.

In a controller based setting none of this is an issue, I push a button to swing, you push a button to block, I'm stopped for a second, you attack, I block, etc. No one is thrown obviously off balance unless they make the mistake of pulling out a power attack when the other person is capable of blocking it.

But with the motion control settings, every single time a player attacks they're going to be EFFECTIVELY thrown off balance, even if they aren't really.

That's the problem.

[bluestarultor]

You make good points, Krylo. I actually was shooting mostly for #2 in what I was describing, plus properly putting the avatar off-balance for a block before having it quickly re-orient on the player. I mean, I personally don't have a problem with that setup, but I understand better now why you disagree.

[Mr.Bookworm]

So, I just got the latest Game Informer thing, and even setting my optimism and expectations down low this is looking pretty good.

They've overhauled the horrendous menu system into something that sounds actually usable, they mugged the perks from Fallout in a back alley, the leveling system is now not a horrible abomination unto god, spellcasting is less crappy and there's a new system of magic you access by finding ancient ruins and killing dragons, you can now kill things with a bow (better range and damage, but slower rate of fire), the story and sidequests and stuff now actually respond to what you've done, enemy A.I. isn't all charge-and-hack, dual-wielding seems pretty neat, and the dialogue system doesn't make me want to slam my head into a brick wall until dead.

Parts of it will undoubtedly suck, but I'm guessing it will at least be better then Oblivion.

[Marc v4.0]

Bow killing isn't a new thing to the Elder Scrolls series

[Mr.Bookworm]

Let me rephrase that.

You can now kill things with a bow without doing that ridiculous backwards dance thing I always ended up doing, pumping like 20 arrows into someone before they went down. And you don't have to get within like fifty feet to have a hope of hitting things. And rogues can consistently one-hit stealth kill people with bows.

Speaking of which, backpedaling apparently doesn't work anymore, because they turned the speed down for backwards movement.