If a game doesn't have "1:1" movements with the Wii-mote, does that equal FAILURE?

I

icecubedx5

CAGiversary!
Try to think back to when Nintendo first showed their controller. I think it was TGS 2005? They didn't show any gameplay videos because they didn't want people looking at the graphics, they wanted you to only concentrate on the potential of the different types of games Wii would present.

I remember that video had the maestro conducting an orchestra, some kid and his grandpa going fishing, 2 chefs, and some guy mimicking drums. Remember when they had that guy mimicking a sword-fight at the end?. Even when I first saw the trailer of Red Steel, I had always assumed that it would be 1:1 movement. But then I heard Red Steel didn't have that, and that there were "pre-set" animations so swinging the controller was effectively the same as "pressing a button."

Now I hear that Zelda is the same thing with the non 1:1 movements. That pains me. 1:1 = brand new INTERACTIVE experience. Anything less than that is...what we've been playing the past 5 generations only slightly different. A caucasian who shakes a hand or an asian guy who bows down, its still the same "sign of respect." Meaning it ain't anything new.

1:1 truly is interactive. I hear a Wii Sports Baseball will be 1:1. But if its not 1:1 where it matters the most (sword-play/lightsabers), I fear that aspect of Wii will truly be a gimmick. You'll get bored of swinging the remote to see a .5 second delay and your on screen character doing the same tired repeated motion. After all, its the same as pressing a button only more tiring.

Your thoughts?
 
Absolute 1:1 isn't realistic for some things. I know Red Steel has moved a lot further toward that ideal, but it just wouldn't work well in execution. Do you really think you'd ever beat an AI player if you were in absolute control of a sword? Could you do a lot of sweet moves with a sword? Doubtful.

I don't even know if it's relevant outside of first-person games.
 
I understand where your coming from. Imagine playing MLB 2007 where the baseball bat had 1:1 movement and you have to swing and time yourself perfectly against a 98 mph fastball from a pitcher. Or dodging blaster fire with a lightsaber would be damn near impossible unless you are a Jedi Master.

But non-1:1 seems so...un-interactive. I could see myself easily marveling at my on-screen lightsaber weilding arm mimicking my exact gestures. Imagine that coupled with great physics like Half-Life 2 Havock engine, you could technically turn a boring Dynasty Warriors game into hours of fun just watching the people get slashed in the direction you hit them.
 
Not necessarily, but I can see pros and concs to both sides.

I'm sure some games will pull off 1:1 wonderfully, some terribly. Likewise, some will get the non-1:1 to be just a perfect fit and feel, while other will bomb. We'll just have to wait and see, much like the touch screen for the DS.
 
Okay they're trying to make the system for anyone to play hense removal of buttons. I have friends come over even recently today and don't know what the hell their doing when they play a game and I sit their for 10 min and explain stuff while they play how to play the game. Nintendo is mainly trying to make things easier and have a better fun value in games like when people go to an arcade everyone knows how to play it's always obvious.
 
[quote name='Bazz']Okay they're trying to make the system for anyone to play hense removal of buttons. I have friends come over even recently today and don't know what the hell their doing when they play a game and I sit their for 10 min and explain stuff while they play how to play the game. Nintendo is mainly trying to make things easier and have a better fun value in games like when people go to an arcade everyone knows how to play it's always obvious.[/quote]

My thoughts exactly
 
I thought Red Steel was going back to the 1:1 controls for the sword fighting. It will definitely have 1:1 for the aiming.

Give it time, developers will explore both avenues, and in the end we'll be the ones winning.
 
[quote name='Quillion']
Give it time, developers will explore both avenues, and in the end we'll be the ones winning.[/QUOTE]


Exactly.
 
1:1 will be impossible for some games. Imagine a close lightsabre fight and you "lock swords" with an enemy. There is no real resistance so you would swing through, but on the screen your sabre would be pushing against his. Any blocking or in-game resistance will make true 1:1 impossible.

As long as its fun, I don't think it matters.
 
[quote name='icecubedx5']I understand where your coming from. Imagine playing MLB 2007 where the baseball bat had 1:1 movement and you have to swing and time yourself perfectly against a 98 mph fastball from a pitcher. Or dodging blaster fire with a lightsaber would be damn near impossible unless you are a Jedi Master.[/quote]

They could solve this problem easily though. Just like how GTA solved the adrenaline problem. Instead of speeding up reality (or in this case normal time), just slow it down. Of course you couldn't deflect blaster fire in real time, but if time was slowed to 1/2 or 1/4 you could manage to do it (if you were good).

But as everyone else has stated, just give it some time to work out the details. In a years time everything should be looking solid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top