|
Home > Archive > Sony playstation2 > September 2005 > impressions of Revolution controller vs a PC mouse
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
impressions of Revolution controller vs a PC mouse
|
|
|
| Impressions of Nintendo's Revolution "free hand style" controller
http://www.tinyurl.com/9hxo4
" "How does it compare to a mouse?"
From what I experienced, it seemed to be more precise than a mouse, but it's
also much faster because it requires only a much smaller movement of the
hand to achieve the desired effect. You just instantly point the controller
at any part of the screen and bam!, that's where you're looking.
There is no lag.
There is no error.
It took a while to get used to the idea of how little effort is required to
play a game with this controller. I kept wanting to lean forward and move
the controller closer to the screen, and it took some practice to just sit
back and just calmly move my hand ever so slightly.
At one point, someone said, "If you were to play a game with this against
someone using a mouse, they'd have no chance against you." I had to admit it
was true.
I've been using a mouse and keyboard for gaming for almost as long as I've
been a gamer. I've logged over 80 hours so far in Battlefield 2 and I have a
level 60 World of WarCraft character. If somebody had tried to tell me
before now that a better controller would come along, I would have laughed
at them.
But it only took me 5 minutes with the Revolution controller to realize that
I don't need to use a mouse ever again.
Let's take a first-person shooter as an example. With a flick of the wrist,
you can completely change your aim point from one corner of the screen to
the other. Changing your aim point that way would require you to move a
mouse all the way across a gamepad and could potentially take up to several
seconds of pushing on a thumbstick with a standard console game controller.
Add to that the fact that the controller can correctly interpret roll
(rotation of the controller clockwise and counterclockwise) and movement
toward the screen or away from it, and you start to get an idea of the
universe of new gameplay possibilities that Revolution games will be able to
explore.
\from an attendee "
| |
| Robert 2005-09-18, 8:30 pm |
| I'm not knocking the new controller, but I still can't see how it's more
precise than a mouse. No analog stick in the world can ever replace a
mouse. (sorry, but I'm a PC gamer too)
| |
|
|
"Robert" <robertaccomando@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:UdmXe.367$vw6.107@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
quote:
> I'm not knocking the new controller, but I still can't see how it's more
> precise than a mouse. No analog stick in the world can ever replace a
> mouse. (sorry, but I'm a PC gamer too)
I don't think he's referring to the little stick add-on. The main controller
responses to movement. So when you move the controller, so does what ever
you're controlling on screen. I saw a short video showing the thing in
action, and it showed this guy waving the controller like a sword. I think
that my arm would get tired pretty quickly if I had to hold the controller
in front of me the whole time I was playing. JLC
| |
|
| On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:13:19 -0500, <RSX> wrote:
quote:
>Impressions of Nintendo's Revolution "free hand style" controller
>
> http://www.tinyurl.com/9hxo4
>
> " "How does it compare to a mouse?"
....
quote:
>Let's take a first-person shooter as an example. With a flick of the wrist,
>you can completely change your aim point from one corner of the screen to
>the other. Changing your aim point that way would require you to move a
>mouse all the way across a gamepad
(I gather gamepad = mousepad?) No it wouldn't, because all FPS games
with mouse support let you decide the mouse movement speed. You can
make very big movements with very little, yet precise, mouse
movements. I'm suprised the guy didn't know that, claiming to be such
an expert with mouse gaming.
All in all this reminds me about that certain "gaming mouse
replacement" 360 degrees controller on PC years ago. It also had
similar devoted fan base which claimed it replaces mouse in FPS games
easily, yet that controller died off for some reason. It didn't appear
to be so superior for FPS games that certain people made it to be.
However, what could make the Revolution controller interesting for
many kinds of games is if it really is a true 3D controller (while
mouse is a 2D controller). But still, I don't really believe it will
give an edge in mouse FPS games. But it is certainly better than
conventional gamepads for console FPS games, that's for sure.
But like someone pointed out, the controller may also be a burden for
long gaming sessions. I can only try to fathom the neck and shoulder
pains from keeping that controller up in the air for a few hours. At
least the video didn't seem that ergonomic.
| |
| joemono 2005-09-19, 6:31 am |
| riku wrote:
quote:
> (I gather gamepad = mousepad?)
I thought there was a typo/mistake there, too. 
No it wouldn't, because all FPS games
quote:
> with mouse support let you decide the mouse movement speed. You can
> make very big movements with very little, yet precise, mouse
> movements. I'm suprised the guy didn't know that, claiming to be such
> an expert with mouse gaming.
Exactly. I'm not big on FPS gaming, but even I realized that moving a
pointer across the entire screen takes no time at all.
quote:
> However, what could make the Revolution controller interesting for
> many kinds of games is if it really is a true 3D controller (while
> mouse is a 2D controller). But still, I don't really believe it will
> give an edge in mouse FPS games. But it is certainly better than
> conventional gamepads for console FPS games, that's for sure.
I gotta think that literally pointing a "gun" at a screen and shooting
would be -at the very least- just as quick as using a mouse for the same
application (assuming the precision/speed is as great as we're hearing
it is). There may not be an "edge" over using a mouse, but you also have
to remember that as far as console gameing is concerned, the revolution
controller only has analog/d-pad controllers to compete with.
quote:
> But like someone pointed out, the controller may also be a burden for
> long gaming sessions. I can only try to fathom the neck and shoulder
> pains from keeping that controller up in the air for a few hours. At
> least the video didn't seem that ergonomic.
>
From what I've read, the controller takes *very little* movement to
control. They're saying that you can comfortably rest it on your knee
and use very little hand/wrist/arm movement to control it. And I get the
impression that that implies physical burden will be a non-issue. Then
again, that could be pure speculation. I guess we'll find out more in
the coming months.
joemono
| |
| greenyammo 2005-09-19, 6:31 am |
| > ...
quote:
>
>
>
> (I gather gamepad = mousepad?) No it wouldn't, because all FPS games
> with mouse support let you decide the mouse movement speed. You can
> make very big movements with very little, yet precise, mouse
> movements. I'm suprised the guy didn't know that, claiming to be such
> an expert with mouse gaming.
>
> All in all this reminds me about that certain "gaming mouse
> replacement" 360 degrees controller on PC years ago. It also had
> similar devoted fan base which claimed it replaces mouse in FPS games
> easily, yet that controller died off for some reason. It didn't appear
> to be so superior for FPS games that certain people made it to be.
>
> However, what could make the Revolution controller interesting for
> many kinds of games is if it really is a true 3D controller (while
> mouse is a 2D controller). But still, I don't really believe it will
> give an edge in mouse FPS games. But it is certainly better than
> conventional gamepads for console FPS games, that's for sure.
>
> But like someone pointed out, the controller may also be a burden for
> long gaming sessions. I can only try to fathom the neck and shoulder
> pains from keeping that controller up in the air for a few hours. At
> least the video didn't seem that ergonomic.
>
The difference between a mouse and this controller is that "where you
look you point" like using your finger, it's instinctive rather than
matching the representation on the screen via a flat surface. I use a
Wacom tablet for my work (that's even better for precision) and there is
a big difference between using that and drawing on paper even when
you've got used to it. There is no calibration, even the most demon PC
player with the mouse sensitivity set all the way up to the top would
find it hard to match somebody who could literally go up to the screen
and tap on the desired part (or trace over the enemy's movements) for a
kill. Speaking of which has anybody played the FEAR demo (PC) yet,
absolutely awesome.
Imagine a simplified contoller or add on at a later date that would
track your head movement (or just strap the contoller to your head).
Then you could use your TV like the 3D monitors already available. The
controller has a lot of scope.
| |
| David Parkes 2005-09-19, 8:31 pm |
| Its horrid and just plain stooooopid
| |
|
| > From what I've read, the controller takes *very little* movement to
quote:
>control. They're saying that you can comfortably rest it on your knee
>and use very little hand/wrist/arm movement to control it. And I get the
>impression that that implies physical burden will be a non-issue. Then
>again, that could be pure speculation. I guess we'll find out more in
>the coming months.
>joemono
and like a mouse, im sure it can be calibrated for small movements or
big movements, depending on how you wanna play or what game you're playing
etc..
| |
|
| >(I gather gamepad = mousepad?) No it wouldn't, because all FPS games
quote:
>with mouse support let you decide the mouse movement speed. You can
>make very big movements with very little, yet precise, mouse
>movements. I'm suprised the guy didn't know that, claiming to be such
>an expert with mouse gaming.
if you want to know whats faster, a mouse or the revolution controller,
go to the arcade and play one of those gun games, and then come home
and play one ported to pc and try with your mouse. for fps's, thats
going to be the difference. i know right off the bat i'd do better
with a mouse but i dunno, i've seen some pretty quick dudes at those
arcades so maybe there's just a learning curve.. then again maybe
they're even better with a mouse, who the XXXX knows. nintendo isn't
competing with pc's anyways, and their controller blows away sony and
ms. i don't know how anyone can complain about this thing.. there's
absolutely no downside, none, and the upside potential is huge.
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-09-19, 8:31 pm |
| "Vin" <i@like.snow> wrote
quote:
> i don't know how anyone can complain about this thing.. there's
> absolutely no downside, none, and the upside potential is huge.
I'm not sure how one can or why they would be driven to do so.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-09-19, 8:31 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Robert <robertaccomando@earthlink.net> wrote:
quote:
> I'm not knocking the new controller, but I still can't see how it's more
> precise than a mouse. No analog stick in the world can ever replace a
> mouse. (sorry, but I'm a PC gamer too)
Well, remember that the Nintendo controller is more like a laser pointer,
than an analog stick or a mouse. Try this experiment. Using your mouse,
move the pointer from one side of your screen to the other. Now, using a
laser pointer, point at one side of the screen, and then move the dot to
the other side of the screen. Do this as fast as you can. I bet you'll
find that the laser pointer will be faster.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-09-19, 8:31 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> (I gather gamepad = mousepad?) No it wouldn't, because all FPS games
> with mouse support let you decide the mouse movement speed. You can
> make very big movements with very little, yet precise, mouse
> movements. I'm suprised the guy didn't know that, claiming to be such
> an expert with mouse gaming.
I think he's thinking about the main controller (the "TV Remote" thingie)
which is more like a laser pointer as opposed to a traditional mouse, or
analog stick controller. In that sense, yes, a pointer would be faster -
though maybe not as precise - as a mouse. You can also get a similar
presentation devices for your PC, if you want some idea of what Nintendo
has come up with.
quote:
> However, what could make the Revolution controller interesting for
> many kinds of games is if it really is a true 3D controller (while
> mouse is a 2D controller). But still, I don't really believe it will
> give an edge in mouse FPS games. But it is certainly better than
> conventional gamepads for console FPS games, that's for sure.
If nothing else, you could use one controller as a light gun, while using
the other for movement. It would take some practice, but this could
potentially lead to a more flexible, and certainly more intuitive, control
scheme, which is Nintendo's goal.
quote:
> But like someone pointed out, the controller may also be a burden for
> long gaming sessions. I can only try to fathom the neck and shoulder
> pains from keeping that controller up in the air for a few hours. At
> least the video didn't seem that ergonomic.
That seems to be the biggest question on everyone's mind.
Then again, maybe this is Nintendo's way of insuring that kids won't play
too many video games ;) Or, at least they'll have really beefy arm&neck
muscles...
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-09-19, 8:31 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 joemono <joe@remove-monterosso.net> wrote:
quote:
> From what I've read, the controller takes *very little* movement to
> control. They're saying that you can comfortably rest it on your knee
> and use very little hand/wrist/arm movement to control it. And I get the
> impression that that implies physical burden will be a non-issue. Then
> again, that could be pure speculation. I guess we'll find out more in
> the coming months.
If it really did take that little effort to get movement on the screen,
then I worry about the thing being TOO sensitive. Oh well, I guess I'll
just have to wait until demo units start hitting the stores to see for
myself. Right now, though, I'm pretty skeptical.
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-09-19, 8:31 pm |
|
"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:11iu1f29qo30k89@corp.supernews.com...
quote:
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 joemono <joe@remove-monterosso.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> If it really did take that little effort to get movement on the screen,
> then I worry about the thing being TOO sensitive. Oh well, I guess I'll
> just have to wait until demo units start hitting the stores to see for
> myself. Right now, though, I'm pretty skeptical.
Try this experiment, Bill Nye. Hold a yard stick by the end and move your
wrist a little amount either way. Now, hold it out in front of you and more
your arm back and forth. The tip moves to the same places, with more or
less accuracy depending on how you hold it.
| |
|
|
"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:11iu0dclfr9os89@corp.supernews.com...
quote:
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Robert
> <robertaccomando@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Well, remember that the Nintendo controller is more like a laser pointer,
> than an analog stick or a mouse. Try this experiment. Using your mouse,
> move the pointer from one side of your screen to the other. Now, using a
> laser pointer, point at one side of the screen, and then move the dot to
> the other side of the screen. Do this as fast as you can. I bet you'll
> find that the laser pointer will be faster.
ok, thought he was referring to the analog stick. =)
| |
|
|
"greenyammo" <greenyammo@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NvuXe.2100$Rv1.1396@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
quote:
>
>
> The difference between a mouse and this controller is that "where you look
> you point" like using your finger, it's instinctive rather than matching
> the representation on the screen via a flat surface. I use a Wacom tablet
> for my work (that's even better for precision) and there is a big
> difference between using that and drawing on paper even when you've got
> used to it. There is no calibration, even the most demon PC player with
> the mouse sensitivity set all the way up to the top would find it hard to
> match somebody who could literally go up to the screen and tap on the
> desired part (or trace over the enemy's movements) for a kill. Speaking of
> which has anybody played the FEAR demo (PC) yet, absolutely awesome.
>
> Imagine a simplified contoller or add on at a later date that would track
> your head movement (or just strap the contoller to your head). Then you
> could use your TV like the 3D monitors already available. The controller
> has a lot of scope.
>
>
>
only problem with the head controller is; when you look left or right,
you're not looking at the TV to see what your doing. hehe =)
| |
|
| On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:21:32 -0000, Doug Jacobs
<djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
quote:
>Well, remember that the Nintendo controller is more like a laser pointer,
>than an analog stick or a mouse. Try this experiment. Using your mouse,
>move the pointer from one side of your screen to the other. Now, using a
>laser pointer, point at one side of the screen, and then move the dot to
>the other side of the screen. Do this as fast as you can. I bet you'll
>find that the laser pointer will be faster.
How do you make a 180/360/720 turn with the Revolution controller? A
genuine question, not a "blah blah blah can't do it!". Does it have a
similar technique like with mouse where you raise the mouse from the
bad and move it to the other edge to continue the movement?
| |
|
| On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 08:18:53 GMT, greenyammo
<greenyammo@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
quote:
>The difference between a mouse and this controller is that "where you
>look you point" like using your finger, it's instinctive rather than
>matching the representation on the screen via a flat surface.
Are you sure? People here seem to say how they think the controller
works, not really knowing for sure. The TV ad that was showed behind
the link wasn't very revealing, because it didn't show anyone actually
using the controller in a real game (like FPS). They seemed to be
using it for some drumming games and fishing games in that video.
If it really works like you said (ie. you actually point it at the
screen), then you would have to aim with it, like with a light gun? On
the other hand, if you used it like someone else suggested (hand and
controller resting on your lap), then I don't see the advantage over a
mouse. It would still be merely indirect controlling, not like you
were drawing directly to the screen.
And as far as FPS games go, how do you make a quick 180-360 degree
turn with the controller? How does it achieve that? Does it have a
button which coincides with being able to raise the mouse to air?
quote:
>I use a
>Wacom tablet for my work (that's even better for precision) and there is
>a big difference between using that and drawing on paper even when
>you've got used to it. There is no calibration, even the most demon PC
>player with the mouse sensitivity set all the way up to the top would
>find it hard to match somebody who could literally go up to the screen
>and tap on the desired part (or trace over the enemy's movements) for a
>kill.
But the thing is that with FPS games, you are not aiming at some part
on the screen (like you do with light gun games for example), but you
are tilting and turning your head movement with the mouse. Thus I
don't think your example is really valid for FPS games.
quote:
>Imagine a simplified contoller or add on at a later date that would
>track your head movement (or just strap the contoller to your head).
So when you make a 180 turn in a FPS game with such a device, you
would be facing away from the TV? Wouldn't it be rather hard to play
that way? ;)
From this discussion, it appears to me that the controller is more
useful for light gun games than actual FPS games. I could see it being
used for FPS games as well (if it has the "mouse in the air"-button),
but in that case I don't see any real advantage over using a mouse.
Time will tell I guess.
| |
|
| On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:34:20 -0000, Doug Jacobs
<djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
quote:
>I think he's thinking about the main controller (the "TV Remote" thingie)
>which is more like a laser pointer as opposed to a traditional mouse, or
>analog stick controller. In that sense, yes, a pointer would be faster -
>though maybe not as precise - as a mouse.
How to make a 180-360 degree turn with a laser pointer? That
description fits light guns, not mice. Can you imagine playing a FPS
game with a light gun? (using the common meaning for FPS games, ie.
games like Halo 2, Half-life 2, Doom 3, BF2 etc.).
If you used the laser pointer more like a mouse in a FPS game, then it
wouldn't really work like a laser pointer anymore, because you
wouldn't be aiming at any certain spot on the screen anymore. In FPS
games, your aiming sight is always at the center of the screen, and
the controller movement affects your head movement, not where you are
aiming at the screen.
quote:
>If nothing else, you could use one controller as a light gun, while using
>the other for movement. It would take some practice, but this could
>potentially lead to a more flexible, and certainly more intuitive, control
>scheme, which is Nintendo's goal.
Yes, I could see it used for e.g. some kind of new FPS/light gun game
hybrids where moving around (and maybe moving your head as well) is
achieved with the analog stick, while precise aiming at the screen
would be with the stick thingie. To me that sounds a bit complicated,
but after you get used to it, it might enable new kinds of 3D shooting
games.
| |
| greenyammo 2005-09-20, 8:33 pm |
| >
quote:
> But the thing is that with FPS games, you are not aiming at some part
> on the screen (like you do with light gun games for example), but you
> are tilting and turning your head movement with the mouse. Thus I
> don't think your example is really valid for FPS games.
>
>
>
>
> So when you make a 180 turn in a FPS game with such a device, you
> would be facing away from the TV? Wouldn't it be rather hard to play
> that way? ;)
>
> From this discussion, it appears to me that the controller is more
> useful for light gun games than actual FPS games. I could see it being
> used for FPS games as well (if it has the "mouse in the air"-button),
> but in that case I don't see any real advantage over using a mouse.
> Time will tell I guess.
>
I'd imagine you would do the self centering; the view would move around
with you knocking the crosshair into the corners of the screen to look
around, much like you would do with the mouse. I admit the helmet thing
is probably not practical but who knows yet?
Maybe you have to "tilt" the thing to look left/right/up down/ with all
the other movement used for the aiming (in conjunction with above) the
gun? That doesn't sound overly practical but it's hard to imagine.
The most obvious advantage I can see for FPS is : Melee attacks where a
simple big wave of the controller would bring out the but of your gun.
Ducking - where you simply lower the contoller. Leaning - where you
would tilt and moving the contoller towards the screen for a zoom
function. It's not so much the "how you look around" interface that I'm
excited about - you could always depress a button and wave it for that,
it's the fact that we could potentially get rid of splaying our hands
out over a keyboard which at the moment gives me hand pain, so much so
that I don't really even use jump or duck on most fps's unless I have to.
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-09-20, 8:33 pm |
| "riku" <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote in message
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> How do you make a 180/360/720 turn with the Revolution controller? A
> genuine question, not a "blah blah blah can't do it!". Does it have a
> similar technique like with mouse where you raise the mouse from the
> bad and move it to the other edge to continue the movement?
Probably... you move the pointer to the far left or right or off screen and
it will keep moving.
| |
|
| >So when you make a 180 turn in a FPS game with such a device, you
quote:
>would be facing away from the TV? Wouldn't it be rather hard to play
>that way? ;)
um only your wrist has to move to turn the remote, not your entire arm,
body, and head.
| |
|
| >>Well, remember that the Nintendo controller is more like a laser pointer,
quote:
>
>How do you make a 180/360/720 turn with the Revolution controller? A
>genuine question, not a "blah blah blah can't do it!". Does it have a
>similar technique like with mouse where you raise the mouse from the
>bad and move it to the other edge to continue the movement?
we don't know because we haven't played it, but there has to be a mouse
lift or 'centering' function otherwise it would be unusable as a camera in
any game, fps, zelda, etc.. if you turned a corner your new 'straight ahead'
would be 90 degrees off from the screen. i think this problem and solution
is pretty obvious to most and thats why no one has commented on it.
the point the person was trying to make with the laser pointer isn't that
the remote is a laser pointer (ie light gun), it was a way to help people
visualize what moving this thing will be like. how fast and precisely can
you move a laser pointer around? well thats how fast and precisely you'll
be able to move the camera around in an fps game. will that end up being
faster than a mouse? yes, no, maybe, who knows.. time will tell. but no
matter what its a giant leap for consoles.
| |
|
|
"greenyammo" <greenyammo@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:U%UXe.1090$WV1.468@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> The most obvious advantage I can see for FPS is : Melee attacks where a
> simple big wave of the controller would bring out the but of your gun.
> Ducking - where you simply lower the contoller. Leaning - where you would
> tilt and moving the contoller towards the screen for a zoom function. It's
> not so much the "how you look around" interface that I'm excited about -
> you could always depress a button and wave it for that, it's the fact that
> we could potentially get rid of splaying our hands out over a keyboard
> which at the moment gives me hand pain, so much so that I don't really
> even use jump or duck on most fps's unless I have to.
>
Damn - this sounds like a trip to the gym. Too much exercise. When I play
games I just want to vegetate in front of the screen
;-)
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-09-20, 8:34 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:
quote:
> How to make a 180-360 degree turn with a laser pointer? That
> description fits light guns, not mice. Can you imagine playing a FPS
> game with a light gun? (using the common meaning for FPS games, ie.
> games like Halo 2, Half-life 2, Doom 3, BF2 etc.).
I've encountered some games that had a "Turn around" button. When you hit
it, your character would physically turn around 180 degrees.
I think something like that could be adapted by the "moving" hand.
| |
|
| On 20 Sep 2005 09:38:14 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
quote:
>
>Probably... you move the pointer to the far left or right or off screen and
>it will keep moving.
As long as you keep moving the pointer farther and farther off the
screen, OR the game screen moves at a set speed as long as you keep
the pointer off the TV screen?
What in your example was equivalent to raising the mouse off the
mousepad and moving it back to the other end of the mousepad?
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-09-20, 8:34 pm |
| "Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:11j0j2d7077eq63@corp.supernews.com...
quote:
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've encountered some games that had a "Turn around" button. When you hit
> it, your character would physically turn around 180 degrees.
>
> I think something like that could be adapted by the "moving" hand.
Probably will be a gradual effect from the center of the screen that as you
point farther out from the center your camera will move to track it and you
re-adjust to center as it does, with a healthy dead spot. A 180 button
seems like a waste.
| |
|
| On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:27:06 GMT, i@like.snow (Vin) wrote:
quote:
>
>um only your wrist has to move to turn the remote, not your entire arm,
>body, and head.
First of all, he was talking about a headgear system, so yes, you
would have to turn your HEAD with it.
But anyway: Ouch! Keep turning your wrist (or in this example, your
head) when you want to make 180-720 degree turns. There's only so far
you can turn and twist your wrist (or head) until it becomes
uncomfortable.
I guess we are still waiting for any live reports of how the system
REALLY works with FPS games.
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-09-20, 8:34 pm |
| "riku" <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote
quote:
>
>
> As long as you keep moving the pointer farther and farther off the
> screen, OR the game screen moves at a set speed as long as you keep
> the pointer off the TV screen?
Probably... a gradual increase in angular velocity in relation as to how far
off to one side you are. Need not go all the way off the screen, even.
quote:
> What in your example was equivalent to raising the mouse off the
> mousepad and moving it back to the other end of the mousepad?
? Nothing? That technique is imperfect, so it doesn't make much sense to
require it in a paradigm shift, IMHO.
| |
|
| On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:28:04 GMT, greenyammo
<greenyammo@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
quote:
>I'd imagine you would do the self centering; the view would move around
>with you knocking the crosshair into the corners of the screen to look
>around, much like you would do with the mouse.
Hmm, I don't understand what you mean by "like you would do with the
mouse". That's not how I use a mouse with FPS games, knocking the
corners of the screen to look around (not quite sure what that
actually means).
How I use a mouse in FPS games: when the mouse reaches the edge of the
mousepad, I raise it slightly to air and move it elsewhere on the
mousepad. This allows me to continue the head movement to the same
direction as before. It does not seem to be clear to anyone how this
is achieved with the Revolution controller, or if it is achieved at
all.
quote:
>The most obvious advantage I can see for FPS is : Melee attacks where a
>simple big wave of the controller would bring out the but of your gun.
>Ducking - where you simply lower the contoller. Leaning - where you
>would tilt and moving the contoller towards the screen for a zoom
>function.
Depends. If I thought that my mouse worked the same way in current FPS
games (ie. raising or lowering the mouse would make my character duck
or stand up, that would most probably deteriorate my aiming in the
process.
quote:
>It's not so much the "how you look around" interface that I'm
>excited about
I think that is the most vital part for FPS games, at least if someone
suggests it is superior to mouse for FPS games.
| |
| Fred Liken 2005-09-20, 8:34 pm |
|
"riku" <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote
quote:
> How I use a mouse in FPS games: when the mouse reaches the edge of the
> mousepad, I raise it slightly to air and move it elsewhere on the
> mousepad. This allows me to continue the head movement to the same
> direction as before. It does not seem to be clear to anyone how this
> is achieved with the Revolution controller, or if it is achieved at
> all.
It's been pointed out by many people how looking around can be implemented
with the Rev controller.
| |
|
| On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:01:09 GMT, riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:
quote:
>What in your example was equivalent to raising the mouse off the
>mousepad and moving it back to the other end of the mousepad?
I'd guess you could hold a button down? Or maybe the reverse ... you
hold a button down to cause it to turn/move your POV, but when you
aren't holding that button down you're always aiming within the screen
coordinates. I'm sure a standard will quickly develop around whichever
feels more natural, or there will be options to configure it. Just
like there are for invert-mouse now ... an option which will go the
way of the dodo with this controller of course! ;-)
| |
|
|
"riku" <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:e7r0j118jdhovbc4cg1jqv3qehghhcdbof@4ax.com...
quote:
> First of all, he was talking about a headgear system, so yes, you
> would have to turn your HEAD with it.
>
> But anyway: Ouch! Keep turning your wrist (or in this example, your
> head) when you want to make 180-720 degree turns. There's only so far
> you can turn and twist your wrist (or head) until it becomes
> uncomfortable.
Ever heard of TrackIR? Its pretty much standard kit for flight simmers
nowdays. An IR camera sitting on top of the monitor following a reflective
dot on the peak of a baseball cap. Probably only move the peak about 6
inches to be looking back over your shoulder on screen. Its no harder to
become second nature than the mouse was way back when and is bloody
brilliant if I do say so myself.
The newest version gives the ability to lean as well as move the viewpoint.
quote:
>
> I guess we are still waiting for any live reports of how the system
> REALLY works with FPS games.
>
| |
|
| On 20 Sep 2005 15:22:04 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
quote:
>"riku" <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote
>
>
>Probably... a gradual increase in angular velocity in relation as to how far
>off to one side you are. Need not go all the way off the screen, even.
So if it was off-screen, it would work more like an analog stick,
where you also have a gradual increase in (angular) velocity depending
on how far from the centerpoint the analog stick is? But if you point
it at the screen, it would work in direct mode, like a mouse or light
gun?
Frankly, I don't believe it works like that, it would probably be too
confusing if its mode of operation would change drastically like that
depending on whether you are pointing it at the screen or not.
BTW, someone pointed out that in some sense the Revolution controller
reminds the MS Freestyle Pro gamepad for PCs, which had a motion
sensor in it. It was also a controller which you keep in the air, and
it reacts when you move or tilt the controller on air. I'm not sure it
it reacted to tilting, so Revolution controller probably has a more
advanced motion sensor in it?
| |
|
| On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:53:51 +1200, "rob" <roball@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
quote:
>
>Ever heard of TrackIR? Its pretty much standard kit for flight simmers
>nowdays. An IR camera sitting on top of the monitor following a reflective
>dot on the peak of a baseball cap. Probably only move the peak about 6
>inches to be looking back over your shoulder on screen. Its no harder to
>become second nature than the mouse was way back when and is bloody
>brilliant if I do say so myself.
Ok, but still, in a flight sim you don't need to make head turns
larger than 180 degrees. In FPS games, you will in many cases make
even many turns around.
I would gather that such headgear systems work better when the output
device is in the headgear itself, so the "monitor" is always in front
of your eyes, no matter how much you turn.
| |
|
| On 20 Sep 2005 15:36:03 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
quote:
>
>It's been pointed out by many people how looking around can be implemented
>with the Rev controller.
I've seen several different suggestions, like using a "raise mouse
button" in order to re-adjust the device (I think I was the first one
suggesting this possibility anyway), or that pointing the device
outside the screen would change its mode of operation more like an
analog stick (you turn faster depending how far off the centerpoint
you are).
The fact still is, these are still mere assumptions. How does it
actually work? Or was it tested with FPS games at all? Was that
testimony a fake one, invented by Nintendo?
| |
|
| On 20 Sep 2005 15:11:04 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
quote:
>Probably will be a gradual effect from the center of the screen that as you
>point farther out from the center your camera will move to track it and you
>re-adjust to center as it does, with a healthy dead spot.
That sounds like there is some kind of intentional lag between moving
the controller and reaction on the screen? Or what does that "you
re-adjust to center _as it does_ (move to track your movement)" mean?
| |
| greenyammo 2005-09-25, 7:31 pm |
| I think this new controller could be the "ipod" of it's type, think
about it? what does the ipod have over it's rivals - superior design and
an excellent user interface. They crash, the sound isn't as loud as the
competitors, the bass response is terrible, the songs still play with
short gaps inbetween and it costs a hundred bucks more than it's rivals;
yet still they sell by the bucket. Hopefully the rest of the revolution
will live up to the superb interface.
RSX wrote:
quote:
> Impressions of Nintendo's Revolution "free hand style" controller
>
> http://www.tinyurl.com/9hxo4
>
> " "How does it compare to a mouse?"
>
> From what I experienced, it seemed to be more precise than a mouse, but it's
> also much faster because it requires only a much smaller movement of the
> hand to achieve the desired effect. You just instantly point the controller
> at any part of the screen and bam!, that's where you're looking.
>
> There is no lag.
>
> There is no error.
>
> It took a while to get used to the idea of how little effort is required to
> play a game with this controller. I kept wanting to lean forward and move
> the controller closer to the screen, and it took some practice to just sit
> back and just calmly move my hand ever so slightly.
>
> At one point, someone said, "If you were to play a game with this against
> someone using a mouse, they'd have no chance against you." I had to admit it
> was true.
>
> I've been using a mouse and keyboard for gaming for almost as long as I've
> been a gamer. I've logged over 80 hours so far in Battlefield 2 and I have a
> level 60 World of WarCraft character. If somebody had tried to tell me
> before now that a better controller would come along, I would have laughed
> at them.
>
> But it only took me 5 minutes with the Revolution controller to realize that
> I don't need to use a mouse ever again.
>
> Let's take a first-person shooter as an example. With a flick of the wrist,
> you can completely change your aim point from one corner of the screen to
> the other. Changing your aim point that way would require you to move a
> mouse all the way across a gamepad and could potentially take up to several
> seconds of pushing on a thumbstick with a standard console game controller.
>
> Add to that the fact that the controller can correctly interpret roll
> (rotation of the controller clockwise and counterclockwise) and movement
> toward the screen or away from it, and you start to get an idea of the
> universe of new gameplay possibilities that Revolution games will be able to
> explore.
>
> \from an attendee "
I think this new controller could be the "ipod" of it's type, think
about it? what does the ipod have over it's rivals - superior design and
an excellent user interface. They crash, the sound isn't as loud as the
competitors, the bass response is terrible, the songs still play with
short gaps inbetween and it costs a hundred bucks more than it's rivals;
yet still they sell by the bucket. Hopefully the rest of the revolution
will live up to the interface.
quote:
>
>
|
| |
|
|