Microsoft To Unveil Full Natal Lineup @ E3

Monty Mole said:
From a platform POV, Sony has been the company doing the "copying" this generation. Sixaxis was a blatant late add-in to combat the Wii. PSN, DLC, downloadable low-budget games, trophies, etc, all ideas seen earlier on 360.

Absolutely, but why kick a dead dog? Even though I don't think DLC and Arcade type downloadables are ideas that have to be copied (selling stuff online was the first idea that came to everyone's mind during the dotcom years too :-) ), the whole concept of PSN is very close to XBL, there's no question about it. The problem with MS is that this is what they do in general, this is their normal operating procedure, that they're quite a bit bigger than Sony and that competition with them is basically impossible.

The PS-wand is probably more reminiscent of the Wii than Natal is of the Eye-Toy. Natal's biggest difference over Eye-Toy is probably not even the IR, but its software SDK - allowing all games to take advantage of the Natal hardware in the same way all games take advantage of Live.

This is closer to a "good practice" in software development, really. But yeah, MS does have a great, not money- but competency based advantage, which is that they know quite a bit about software development. I must admit that they seem to be using that advantage pretty well.

As for the similarities etc between the PS Wand, Eyetoy etc: technology doesn't matter. The question is about the gameplay difference that results from the different technologies. If eventually all you can play with the Natal is going to be better Eyetoy games (I don't think this is probable though tbh), it's going to be closer to the Eyetoy, regardless of technology involved.
 
Flachmatuch said:
Third party developers are all making a lot of money on their HD games, in addition to also being able to live out their creative, artistic side. Of course they don't want to handle something like the Wii, where you can't make money or even create good games, since it doesn't meet the minimum technical requirements for real art. The HD consoles are different, they have the power that really creative minds need.

Were you being sarcastic? No seriously were you?
 
TheLegendary said:
Calm the fuck down. The "core" gamer is a valid segment of the market, especially from a business perspective. It's the 80-20 rule; 20% of your audience makes up 80% of your sales. The core gamer (or any other core customer) is one that researches and spends a siginificant amount of time with a product or service. Although in numbers "casual" gamers dwarf casual gamers, satisfying core customers is often worth more effort based on their spending habits. Core gamers are not insignifcant in anyway despite your whining. If MS can target a wider audience while keeping the core customer happy they'll be wildly successful.


No, you will calm down and read the thread, noone is talking about 80% of the market, my response was directed to the guy who made the assumption that this small sect of the market is the majority of the e3 attendees. I could give a fuck what you think about the marketplace or what the hardcores spending habits are, the FACT OF THE MATTER IS they are NOT in the majority at the E3 show, which is the actual TOPIC that was being discussed when I made my reply. Hell I even quoted the guy, and yet you still missed the point of the exchange me and him were having. And in fact the only person whining was the guy whining about MS devoting any attention to the casual audience at E3.

But hey, nice putting your insecurity on display there. Nowhere in my post did I even hint at MS not needing to satisfy both audiences, we were talking about E3 attendees, which you somehow didnt even touch on at ALL in your reply. Its like jumping into a conversation about endangered species and bringing up your theories on LOST. Thanks for failing.
 
Flachmatuch said:
They built a technically very competent system, and did have a couple of awesome and well executed ideas (like achievements and gamer points), but I don't see how Xbox Live itself is an innovation. Most of the features it has are pretty obvious (but well done, I'm not contesting that) and already had been on PCs, but they made a very cool integrated system. Still, no matter how well made it is, it's not really "innovative", it's just an application of general technologies to gaming.

Do I have to requote myself:

Linkified said:
They innovated with Xbox Live in the console market.

Did you read I said console market.

They didn't innovate? You may want to check your definition

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innovate

To introduce (something new) for or as if for the first time: to innovate a computer operating system.

Always on always connected unified system of Xbox Live for a console ain't innovative in the console space?
 
Vizion28 said:
Were you being sarcastic? No seriously were you?

Read my other posts :-) This "better technology is required for us to fulfill our creative potential" thing is the biggest piece of bullshit, ever, especially looking at actual games.

Monty Mole said:
And yet Sony is still 'catching up' with Xbox Live. If the features are 'pretty obvious', then surely PSN would have had Trophies, cross-game chat, parties etc from the start?

It's easy to say they're obvious features in retrospect, but there's a reason why Live is so popular and why 360 has been so successful in the online space.

My answer may be wrong, but at least it's simple: MS is better (much better) at software development than Sony. I think this is also true for American/Japanese software (game) companies in general too. The Western approach to software development is a lot more efficient. It also has weak points but for well-understood pure technology development like XBL, it's so much better it's not even funny. I never said it wasn't well done, I just said that it didn't really need too much insight. XBL does have some stuff that's uncharacteristically innovative for MS, I'll give you that :-)


REMEMBER CITADEL said:
I don't see it like that at all. If motion sensing was all there was to Natal, then sure, I'd have to agree it's just a bigger and better approach to an already established paradigm. But it's not, motion sensing is just one part of the Natal equation (albeit most prominently featured in the promotional push because of Wii's success) and I really see it as something that has the potential to fundamentally change the way we interface with consoles (and computers, since Microsoft seems to be intent on bringing Natal to PCs as well).

Whether they really realize that potential remains to be seen.

You expect development in human computer interfaces from Microsoft? I'd be surprised, looking at their track record.

Seriously, this is good, meaningless PR speak. In what way will it "fundamentally change" the way we "interface" with electronic devices? And what will the difference be? How will it change our lives and make it better? Yeah, the technology is awesome and interesting, but why's it good for content?
 
jaypah said:
oh, so you just flat-out don't like MS? i can dig it. at the very least it certainly makes all of your post a lot more understandable.

To be fair, I utterly despise Microsoft, but that has no bearing on my criticisms of Natal. From my perspective, it simply is an uneducated response to what MS thinks Nintendo's market wants rather than really understanding why the Wii was so successful. That's fine. It's their money.

Beyond that, Rare might very well exit the dugout and hit a homerun with the thing. I doubt it happening though - they've shown no facility for such success for quite some time, but I think they have the development chops to accomplish it, if anyone has.
 
Linkified said:
Do I have to requote myself:

Did you read I said console market.

They didn't innovate? You may want to check your definition

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innovate

Always on always connected unified system of Xbox Live for a console ain't innovative in the console space?

If you think applying a technology you already know to a different "space" is "innovation", then yeah, it's innovation. In this sense, a new 360 motherboard is also an "innovation" because it introduces new technology (say 45nm) to the "console space". It's obviously not the same type of innovation as the DS/Wii, the Eyetoy, GTA3, the analogue stick or gamer points are though. One changes things around within the context of its own specialisation, the other introduces external knowledge (technology).

As for the "console space" thing in general - it's an arbitrary and meaningless limitation. Or did Microsoft innovate in the "360 space" or the "HD market" when they introduced avatars? Or did Sony innovate with the Sixaxis also in the "HD market"? Gaming is gaming, whether on PC or consoles, and a lot of the ideas behind XBL that are actual "gaming" ideas had been on PC before.

@jaypah: I don't like MS because I know a bit about them and have some experience with them, but that's irrelevant. My point was that they should have been broken up a few times already if antitrust laws actually worked. What does this have to do with what I wrote? Would it be more true if I loved MS? I thought these things were independent?

In fact, saying that I say these things about MS simply because I don't like them is a pretty serious accusation that you must substantiate and never just assume.

Vinci said:
Beyond that, Rare might very well exit the dugout and hit a homerun with the thing. I doubt it happening though - they've shown no facility for such success for quite some time, but I think they have the development chops to accomplish it, if anyone has.

I think Natal's best hope is probably XBLA and maybe Community Games, not big developers.
 
Vinci said:
To be fair, I utterly despise Microsoft, but that has no bearing on my criticisms of Natal. From my perspective, it simply is an uneducated response to what MS thinks Nintendo's market wants rather than really understanding why the Wii was so successful. That's fine. It's their money.

Beyond that, Rare might very well exit the dugout and hit a homerun with the thing. I doubt it happening though - they've shown no facility for such success for quite some time, but I think they have the development chops to accomplish it, if anyone has.

i hope you didn't think i was talking about you there, that wasn't my intention.

in response to your post i don't think their move to Natal was uneducated. i think they saw the big hit that the wii was and instead of saying "let's just do a blatant rip-off" they said "the wii shook things up a lot, it was refreshing and it paid off. let's do something creative too and see what happens" in the hopes that it also pays off. let's face it, the MS of old (and the one that's constantly on trial here) would have just said fuck it and did what Sony did but without the in-house creativity and development muscle of Sony, to disastrous results. and honestly, as a gamer i relate to Sony's product more, especially considering we haven't even seen real Natal games. but i do admire that they've put their nuts on the line with this wacky ass product.

Flachmatuch said:
@jaypah: I don't like MS because I know a bit about them and have some experience with them, but that's irrelevant. My point was that they should have been broken up a few times already if antitrust laws actually worked. What does this have to do with what I wrote? Would it be more true if I loved MS? I thought these things were independent?

In fact, saying that I say these things about MS simply because I don't like them is a pretty serious accusation that you must substantiate and never just assume.

you're right and i apologize. you just seem to go really far out of your way to discredit them and with an already stated hate of the company..... well on GAF that's usually enough. but i honestly don't feel like getting into it so i retract my statement.
 
Odrion said:
I use to believe in Natal, but I really can't see this taking off.


I think it would be pretty amazing if Natal or the PSwand were to take off (I dont think both of them will, perhaps one though) but Im not completely convinced yet either. Im more excited because despite whether or not they both hit a home run, they will still serve an important purpose IMO. To get more third parties to accept, or try or research motion controls of some type. Motion is going to be a part of future gens, no matter how many people think it will fade. The sooner we get more third parties familiarized with it the better. I honestly think that there are a number of devs out there that arent going to give motion serious thought at ALL if its only on a Nintendo console. I think that motion needed to show up on 360 or PS3 before these developers suddenly started having "so many ideas about the possibilities of motion" and these two launching will do just that.

Whatever gets them going is fine by me. I dont want to see them having to learn the ropes of motion next gen, Im going to want some good shit, not Milo, not Lets Dance and not Resident Evil 5: MotionEditionlolz.

Fuck that.
 
Should be interesting to see where both companies are with this stuff after the dust settles post-E3.

Currently my impression is that MS is jumping into this with both feet. They've deciding this is the next direction for 360, are fully committed and throwing all their weight and people behind it.

With Sony I feel like they have some great talent working on it but they seem a little hesitant to fully commit to the direction. They just don't seem fully behind it and focused/excited. I find Arc more exciting though personally, but I feel like E3 might be Sony's last chance to build up buzz for it on par with Natal's buzz.

Whether or not either will have what many would define as success with this tangent is anyone's guess at this point. Could go either way IMO. But then again, Microsoft' deep pockets always seem to generate unexpected outcomes...
 
jaypah said:
you're right and i apologize. you just seem to go really far out of your way to discredit them and with an already stated hate of the company..... well on GAF that's usually enough. but i honestly don't feel like getting into it so i retract my statement.

Hehe no probs. I don't think I'm discrediting them at all though, I think I'm giving them way too much credit, as I'm kind of picturing them as some unstoppable giant evil machine trampling through all in their path - which is exactly what good companies are supposed to be like :-)

Puncture said:
I think it would be pretty amazing if Natal or the PSwand were to take off (I dont think both of them will, perhaps one though) but Im not completely convinced yet either. Im more excited because despite whether or not they both hit a home run, they will still serve an important purpose IMO. To get more third parties to accept, or try or research motion controls of some type. Motion is going to be a part of future gens, no matter how many people think it will fade. The sooner we get more third parties familiarized with it the better. I honestly think that there are a number of devs out there that arent going to give motion serious thought at ALL if its only on a Nintendo console. I think that motion needed to show up on 360 or PS3 before these developers suddenly started having "so many ideas about the possibilities of motion" and these two launching will do just that.

I think this would show a pretty serious fucked-upness within the developer community. Sounds like it wants to get its dick sucked before starting to even try to do their job.
 
Flachmatuch said:
Third party developers are all making a lot of money on their HD games, in addition to also being able to live out their creative, artistic side. Of course they don't want to handle something like the Wii, where you can't make money or even create good games, since it doesn't meet the minimum technical requirements for real art. The HD consoles are different, they have the power that really creative minds need.

Vizion28 said:
Were you being sarcastic? No seriously were you?
I don't think he's serious about the whole "better technology is required for us to fulfill our creative potential" thing.... But isn't it true that third party games don't sell that good on the wii compared to say the 360 and PS3?

REMEMBER CITADEL said:
Wow, this thread has really gone from relatively reasonable conversation to utter garbage in just an hour. What happened?
Why is it complete garbage? Fill me in.
 
140.85 said:
Should be interesting to see where both companies are with this stuff after the dust settles post-E3.

Currently my impression is that MS is jumping into this with both feet. They've deciding this is the next direction for 360, are fully committed and throwing all their weight and people behind it.

With Sony I feel like they have some great talent working on it but they seem a little hesitant to fully commit to the direction. They just don't seem fully behind it and focused/excited. I find Arc more exciting though personally, but I feel like E3 might be Sony's last chance to build up buzz for it on par with Natal's buzz.

Whether or not either will have what many would define as success with this tangent is anyone's guess at this point. Could go either way IMO. But then again, Microsoft' deep pockets always seem to generate unexpected outcomes...
MS and Sony don't have much of a choice. They don't have the resources, mindshare or developers interest to release a PS4 or Xbox 720 and that is what usually would've happened after 4/5 years on the market. They can't keep increasing the specs on the consoles and take a big hit financially because the current systems are just starting to become profitable. They need a new 'hook' to get players interested and Natal and Arc are the obvious products to expand the lifespan of their systems. Not to mention that Nintendo doesn't seem to be effected by anything they do, so even if they can claim victory over one another there's always an immovable object in the room.

I can't wait for Microsoft to actually compete with Nintendo instead of Sony for a change. If Natal is a success and takes over some Wii sales magic it'll actually be the first time that Nintendo and Microsoft are actively competing. Even during the GameCube/Xbox days they both had their different markets and Nintendo didn't see MS as a competitor at all. Just like Microsoft this gen said "Nintendo is doing their own thing and so are we", while going after Sony guns blazing.
 
Flachmatuch said:
You expect development in human computer interfaces from Microsoft? I'd be surprised, looking at their track record.

Are you serious? I'm not sure how much sense it makes to even try to reason with a person who obviously has a bone to grind with Microsoft, but over the years, they (along with other companies like Apple) have added an awful lot to research and improvement of machine-human interfaces - from features in classic GUI interfaces like Windows to more exotic concepts like Surface and now Natal. Not to mention all the other interesting projects coming out of "utterly pathetic" Microsoft Research, such as Photosynth or Pivot (both of which are trying to organize large amounts of data into user-friendly structures).


Seriously, this is good, meaningless PR speak. In what way will it "fundamentally change" the way we "interface" with electronic devices? And what will the difference be? How will it change our lives and make it better? Yeah, the technology is awesome and interesting, but why's it good for content?

If Natal delivers on its promises, we'll finally have a rather natural way of interfacing with computers and other similar devices: by talking to them and emoting as we normally do, with Natal picking up on our gestures, emotions in our voices and on our faces and making use of that data. Again, the upcoming incarnation of Natal is just the beginning and it will probably be rather primitive, but it's a step in the right direction. Even if Microsoft fails to deliver on its promises, I'm sure it's going to inspire someone else to continue with research in the same area.

And yes, most technologies used in Natal aren't exactly new (just like Wii's motion sensing wasn't anything new on the technical level), but their fusion and availability in a consumer device are what could make the difference between an interesting lab experiment and something with a much wider influence.
 
InterMoniker said:
I don't think he's serious about the whole "better technology is required for us to fulfill our creative potential" thing.... But isn't it true that third party games don't sell that good on the wii compared to say the 360 and PS3?

It might be true. What we know is that a) niche hardcore games don't sell more on the Wii then they sold on the PS2 and b) cheapass shit doesn't sell forever. The rest of the questions about third party games might be answered this year.
 
Vinci said:
From my perspective, it simply is an uneducated response to what MS thinks Nintendo's market wants rather than really understanding why the Wii was so successful. That's fine. It's their money.

This is pretty much my takeaway as well, it's a cynical surface reading. Of course, maybe they do, in which case, bravo for them for seeing what I couldn't.
 
jaypah said:
in response to your post i don't think their move to Natal was uneducated. i think they saw the big hit that the wii was and instead of saying "let's just do a blatant rip-off" they said "the wii shook things up a lot, it was refreshing and it paid off. let's do something creative too and see what happens" in the hopes that it also pays off.

How is tossing random stuff at a wall not 'uneducated'? That's not what Nintendo did at all. I'm not saying the Wii's success wasn't fortuitous, as that would be disingenuous, but the Wii Remote was heavily prototyped and tested long before Nintendo ever decided that it was worth heading in that direction. The company probably spends half of their development time on testing.

It's also not what Sony is doing. Theirs is very blatantly built around the Wii Remote with a different tech spin on it.

let's face it, the MS of old (and the one that's constantly on trial here) would have just said fuck it and did what Sony did but without the in-house creativity and development muscle of Sony, to disastrous results. and honestly, as a gamer i relate to Sony's product more, especially considering we haven't even seen real Natal games. but i do admire that they've put their nuts on the line with this wacky ass product.

In your dramatization, Microsoft is willing to chuck potentially billions of dollars on 'let's do something creative too and see what happens.' Doesn't that sort of underline what Flachmatuch was discussing a moment ago about how MS operates and why it's able to do that? That's not normal business procedure for anyone. I detest MS for reasons unconnected to their sheer gravitational force, but I do understand that the power they're bringing into this industry is not a healthy thing. I'm just too selfish to really care most of the time so long as their efforts don't bite me in the ass.
 
Flachmatuch said:
It might be true. What we know is that a) niche hardcore games don't sell more on the Wii then they sold on the PS2 and b) cheapass shit doesn't sell forever. The rest of the questions about third party games might be answered this year.
Only time will tell.
jaypah said:
i hope you didn't think i was talking about you there, that wasn't my intention.

in response to your post i don't think their move to Natal was uneducated. i think they saw the big hit that the wii was and instead of saying "let's just do a blatant rip-off" they said "the wii shook things up a lot, it was refreshing and it paid off. let's do something creative too and see what happens" in the hopes that it also pays off. let's face it, the MS of old (and the one that's constantly on trial here) would have just said fuck it and did what Sony did but without the in-house creativity and development muscle of Sony, to disastrous results. and honestly, as a gamer i relate to Sony's product more, especially considering we haven't even seen real Natal games. but i do admire that they've put their nuts on the line with this wacky ass product.
:lol
 
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
If Natal delivers on its promises, we'll finally have a rather natural way of interfacing with computers and other similar devices: by talking to them and emoting as we normally do, with Natal picking up on our gestures, emotions in our voices and on our faces and making use of that data.

The most natural way for interfacing with computers and other similar devices has already been put out, sold well, and being copied like a damn banshee: It's called the iPhone's multi-touch interface.
 
Vinci said:
In your dramatization, Microsoft is willing to chuck potentially billions of dollars on 'let's do something creative too and see what happens.' Doesn't that sort of underline what Flachmatuch was discussing a moment ago about how MS operates and why it's able to do that? That's not normal business procedure for anyone. I detest MS for reasons unconnected to their sheer gravitational force, but I do understand that the power they're bringing into this industry is not a healthy thing. I'm just too selfish to really care most of the time so long as their efforts don't bite me in the ass.
Sounds like Google and yet everyone loves the shit out of them.
 
Vinci said:
The most natural way for interfacing with computers and other similar devices has already been put out, sold well, and being copied like a damn banshee: It's called the iPhone's multi-touch interface.
And how many doubted its potential?
 
Vinci said:
The most natural way for interfacing with computers and other similar devices has already been put out, sold well, and being copied like a damn banshee: It's called the iPhone's multi-touch interface.

There's huge potential for voice wrt how we interact with computers. If we can ever crack the problem well.

Multi-touch ain't the epitome of human/computer interaction. I hope not anyway! We've miles and miles to go.
 
Vinci said:
The most natural way for interfacing with computers and other similar devices has already been put out, sold well, and being copied like a damn banshee: It's called the iPhone's multi-touch interface.

Um, no. It's truly great for its intended use, but the most natural way of interfacing with computers? Hell no.
 
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
Are you serious? I'm not sure how much sense it makes to even try to reason with a person who obviously has a bone to grind with Microsoft, but over the years, they (along with other companies like Apple) have added an awful lot to research and improvement of machine-human interfaces - from features in classic GUI interfaces like Windows to more exotic concepts like Surface and now Natal. Not to mention all the other interesting projects coming out of "utterly pathetic" Microsoft Research, such as Photosynth or Pivot (both of which are trying to organize large amounts of data into user-friendly structures).

That's *exactly* what I called utterly pathetic. MS Research should be a new PARC, a new Bell Labs. Sorry but most of these things look like snake oil to me.

And yeah, they invented a few superficial features, but the concept behind their GUI has changed basically nothing. Seriously, can you list anything in interfaces that's as important as, to stick to an easy goal, what Apple did? Anything even remotely comparable to even the trashcan or menubars (drop down menus)? They've been "business leader" in GUIs for decades and they're still sticking to the desktop metaphor that the Alto already had?

So, what are those MS innovations exactly?

If Natal delivers on its promises, we'll finally have a rather natural way of interfacing with computers and other similar devices: by talking to them and emoting as we normally do, with Natal picking up on our gestures, emotions in our voices and on our faces and making use of that data. Again, the upcoming incarnation of Natal is just the beginning and it will probably be rather primitive, but it's a step in the right direction. Even if Microsoft fails to deliver on its promises, I'm sure it's going to inspire someone else to continue with research in the same area.

Well speech/gesture recognition is not the biggest issue behind this. What's missing is exactly the stuff faked by Milo :-)

And yes, most technologies used in Natal aren't exactly new (just like Wii's motion sensing wasn't anything new on the technical level), but their fusion and availability in a consumer device are what could make the difference between an interesting lab experiment and something with a much wider influence.

But...why? What are some of the practical uses for Natal (except for cool looking but pretty tiresome looking navigation interfaces)? I mean, yeah, the technology *is* very cool, but why do people always talk in generalities? It's always about "possibilities" and "a step in the right direction", but, apart from a handful of ideas (commando gestures, grenade throwing, head tracking), I've not seen an actual game idea that really goes beyond Eyetoy stuff. I mean, if it's so awesome, if it opens so many possibilities then why don't people keep coming up with new game ideas?

Vinci said:
How is tossing random stuff at a wall not 'uneducated'? That's not what Nintendo did at all. I'm not saying the Wii's success wasn't fortuitous, as that would be disingenuous, but the Wii Remote was heavily prototyped and tested long before Nintendo ever decided that it was worth heading in that direction. The company probably spends half of their development time on testing.

They had a *game* that worked with it. Playtesting etc is important, but they built it around gameplay concept, around actual market-specific knowledge. They weren't selling a possibility or a step in the right direction, but a product that worked and was fun and new for a lot of people.
 
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
Um, no. It's truly great for its intended use, but the most natural way of interfacing with computers? Hell no.

The most natural way for humans to interact with anything is touch. Always has been. That's the earliest method for us to interact with our world and the most direct. The only path really beyond that would be to operate computers with our minds. We don't really feel in control of things without tactile interaction.
 
Vinci said:
The most natural way for interfacing with computers and other similar devices has already been put out, sold well, and being copied like a damn banshee: It's called the iPhone's multi-touch interface.

Multi-touch interface was around long before iPhone.
 
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
Wow, this thread has really gone from relatively reasonable conversation to utter garbage in just an hour. What happened?

It was bound to happen.

You have the normal GAF-hate towards "casual" gaming and "casual" products like NATAL. And then you have the fact GAF leans towards Sony products & games, which the X360 is the main competitor.

Personally, MS is going to have to go gangbusters at E3 for me to buy NATAL...same goes for Sony's ARC. None of it really interests me at this point.
 
Its difficult to discuss with a person that a) has already made up his mind on the product and b) has a bone to pick with a corparation. Its like talking to a brick wall.
 
Wickerbasket said:
Sounds like Google and yet everyone loves the shit out of them.

People love Google 'cause they give everything they make out for free. The way Google and Microsoft operate are nowhere near the same.
 
TheOddOne said:
Its difficult to discuss with a person that a) has already made up his mind on the product and b) has a bone to pick with a corparation. Its like talking to a brick wall.

Show me a single argument that I ignored, didn't answer or misunderstood before you say anything like this. I mean, I have my preferences and I admit to them, but that doesn't mean at all that I ignore or falsify arguments. As I said before, it's a serious claim, and you shouldn't use it unless you can prove it.

You know, it might actually be the case that MS *is* indeed a large corporation, whose influence is not perfectly good, and may even be a problem in this market. I don't see how it's that obviously stupid to say that having one of the world largest and richest corporations enter a new market with huge financial muscle might distort it and be a bad influence in the long run.
 
Karma said:
Then why not just say 'Multi-touch interface'? Why did you add the iPhone part?
To make it easier for us to understand where all the MS hate was coming from.


Vinci said:
The most natural way for humans to interact with anything is touch.
And the most natural way for humans to communicate with anything is voice.
 
Rainier said:
To make it easier for us to understand where all the MS hate was coming from.

It's fairly well-known on this forum where my MS hate comes from, and it sure as hell isn't Apple bias. I don't own a single Apple product.
 
Vinci said:
It's fairly well-known on this forum where my MS hate comes from, and it sure as hell isn't Apple bias. I don't own a single Apple product.
Fair enough, I'm new here. I stand corrected.
 
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
If Natal delivers on its promises, we'll finally have a rather natural way of interfacing with computers and other similar devices: by talking to them and emoting as we normally do, with Natal picking up on our gestures, emotions in our voices and on our faces and making use of that data. Again, the upcoming incarnation of Natal is just the beginning and it will probably be rather primitive, but it's a step in the right direction. Even if Microsoft fails to deliver on its promises, I'm sure it's going to inspire someone else to continue with research in the same area.

I can agree with this. I don't know if Natal specifically will be worthwhile, but I like the idea in general of a computer interface being able to read and meaningfully respond to the emotions of the user. In games specifically, I could see maybe the game offering a hint or some other kind of help when it sees that the player is getting frustrated, or using it to get a general sense of what parts of the game the player likes and what parts they don't and adjusting the rest of the game accordingly.
 
Flachmatuch said:
But...why? What are some of the practical uses for Natal (except for cool looking but pretty tiresome looking navigation interfaces)? I mean, yeah, the technology *is* very cool, but why do people always talk in generalities? It's always about "possibilities" and "a step in the right direction", but, apart from a handful of ideas (commando gestures, grenade throwing, head tracking), I've not seen an actual game idea that really goes beyond Eyetoy stuff. I mean, if it's so awesome, if it opens so many possibilities then why don't people keep coming up with new game ideas?

Here are a couple:

Dodgeball

General Gameplay


Players will be able to control their onscreen counterpart via a complete 1:1 mapping of their environment and body to the games body and environment. If the player moves forward and to the left 3 feet, the character onscreen moves forward and to the left 3 feet. If the play jumps to the right, the character jumps to the right. Natal supports an area of 20X20 if I recall, so that gives plenty of room for maneuvering. This will not be a game for people with tiny living spaces.

Games will have the standard dodgeball rules. Teams throw balls at the other teams in an attempt to hit them. Once hit a player is out. A player can be brought back into the game if a team member catches a ball thrown at him/her. After all players on a team are hit, a point is awarded to the winning team. After a configurable amount of points are earned, the game is won. Balls must be caught with both hands, but can be thrown with one. Only one ball at a time can be held. Balls can be deflected using a ball that is currently being held.

Any match during the tournament can be viewed by spectators. Possibly showing their avatars in the stands, much like they do with 1 vs 100. Perhaps avatar trophies or MS points can be awarded to the winning teams.

Configurable Gameplay

Environment options


The environment can be configured to change as the match rolls on in an attempt to speed it along. Hazards will appear, such as holes in the floor, lava rivers(depending on the stage), low walls to force jumpming or high stepping, etc. Perhaps the outer foot of the space keeps getting removed every 30 seconds or so to give the player less room to maneuver and dodge.

Power Ups

Power ups can either be thrown at or walk over to pick up. They will be located on the players court and in the air between the two teams. It will be risky to go try nd pick up a powerup because the opposing team will most likely be ready for you to attempt to get them and have a ball waiting for you when you get there. Throwing a ball to get a power up can be risky as well since you could have attempted to get the other team out with it, or they could catch it more easily.

Shield - Can be activated on voice command. Provides a 1 second invulnerability.

Fast ball - Ball thrown speeds are increased.

Fire ball - Cannot be caught, must be dodged.

Team mate revival - This will allow one of your team mates to rejoin the match.

Slow down - Ball for the other team are slowed down.

Environment change - This will cause something to happen to the other team's playing field.

There could be many more powerups to offer.

Stages

Stages can get really crazy. A playing field could consist of only small ledges that must be stepped or jumped onto carefully. Dodging balls at the same time as this could get quite interesting. There would be the inevitable beach stage, lava stage, water stage, desert stage, space stage, forest stage, etc. All offering different environmental hazards and power up sets.




Game Idea 2

Overview

Planets all over the universe are falling apart for some unknown reason. It is your task, as an enormous galactic overseer. To fix the planets before the are destroyed. In order to fix the planets, you must use the tools at your displosal. The tools include: spackle, water bottle, glue, paper towels, etc.

Gameplay mechanics

As the player, you must save the planet from destruction by mending all problems that occur. The planets crust can crack, the crust can start flying off the planet, fires can erupt threatening to burn everything, water can flood, etc. Players interact with the planet as if it were floating in front of them. Turning it whichever way they choose using their hands. Tools are access by "grabbing" the appropriate one from the side bar of the screen. A piece of crust flies off the planet, grab it, apply some glue, and then place it back on the planet. Fire erupts, use your breath, or use the water bottle. If a flood is breaking out, use the paper towels to soak it up, if fire has broken out somewhere else, use the soaked paper towel to extenguish it. If something is flying towards the planet, light the paper towel on fire and throw it at it. A crack appears on the crust from an earthquake, spackle it up. More tools and situations are unlocked as you complete planets and solar systems. The further along the player progresses, the more chaotic things become and the more creative players must get in order to successfully save the planet.

Multiplayer can be between players trying to save their own planets but also destroy the other person's planet. Throw lit paper towel balls at the opponent. Squeeze out soaked paper towels to cause floods. Glue crust over a volcanoe hole to cause internal chaos in their planet.

There can also be a coop game where multiple players are having to save the planet at the same time. This allows for far more chaos than single player. But can also encompass some co-op techniques. Not sure what these could be, but upon further thinking, I am sure I could come up with something.




Game Idea #3


It is basically an episodic game that has new content every day. Imagine shows like Sesame Street or Blues Clues where they have faux viewer interaction. The characters on screen ask the children to answer a question, or point to the correct answer. Now, with Natal, this type of interaction can be done for real between the onscreen character and the audience.

Natal can recognize the child via facial recognition, greet the child, comment on the shirt, detect any body growth, comment on that, and proceed with the days episode or ask if they would like to view a past episode. This is all done via streaming. Each episode should be small enough to fit in RAM, maybe cache a little to the hard drive.

The child can be sat in front of the tv and have a rewarding and interactive educational experience. No controller necessary, just natural interaction. Vocal, pointing, dancing, etc. Characters on screen can ask the child to repeat after them(ABCs for example). If the child does it correctly the character on screen can congratulate and reward them. If they do not do it correctly, the child can be asked nicely to attempt again. Characters on screen can ask the child to point to the correct item on screen to solve the puzzle. The child would point and Natal could see which one the child was pointing to. Math questions can be asked, words can asked to be spelled, etc. Tons of new content daily. Obviously the content would need to be entertaining to the child so it would not be all puzzles and questions, a narrative would tie them all together.

Children can be rewarded by avatar items and in game unlockables. Varying difficulties can be toggled so that the right content can be available for different skill levels.



Game Idea #4

Premise


A Myst like adventure game. A completely 3D world for the player to interact with and solve puzzles. I will not come up with a story, just the game play characteristics.

Control

This game will be playable with the hands, voice, and face. Navigation will be done by hand movements. To turn, players swipe their hands across the screen like they are scrolling threw the Zune HD UI. To move forward, players grab forward and pull back towards themselves. To move backwards, you push away from you. The more exagerated the gestures, the more movement that is done.

To pick things up, you actually just have to reach and pick them up. To put them in your inventory, act like you placed them in your pocket. To use them, bring up the inventory menu by reaching in your pocket, the screen will display inventory, and you reach and grab what you want. You then use the item to interact with the environment.

Voice can be used to solve puzzles and interact with characters. Simple vocal commands can be given to characters and choices in dialogue can be chosen via vocal commands. An example of a vocal interaction with the environment would be a door locked via vocal and hand recognition. The player would act like they are placing their hand on the pad and then speaking in order to gain access.

Facial expressions can be utilized during character dialogue. The characters will pick up on your facial expressions as you play the game and react to them. Characters can also comment on your clothing in order to more immerse you in the experience.

The game would be fairly simple to develop and I would imagine we would see at least one game of this sort during Natal's lifespan.





Game Idea #5

A jigsaw puzzle game. Puzzle pieces will be shuffled and scattered about the screen. Up to 8 players(4 players to one box) can work on the same puzzle at the same time. Pieces can be picked up by hand, rotated(rotated by moving your other hand around it, much like you would turn a fan blade if you were holding the fan with one hand), and snapped into place. When pieces are picked up, by moving your hand closer to you, the piece zooms in so you can see it better. Video is enabled so that you can see the other people who are doing the puzzle with you. This is a nice family and socializing game. Much like Uno. New puzzles are added daily(streamed, not downloaded). Puzzles can also be created via pictures on the network.

Leaderboards will be available for the daily puzzles so that families can compete with other families.





Game Idea #6

Players wll be in control of large mechanized vehicles. Some of them bipedal, quadrapedal(word?), and wheel based. This will be a Natal only game. Players will control the vehicle via a virtual cockpit that is 1:1 with their surroundings. Depending on the vehicle, different cockpits will be available to control the vehicle. I will us a bidepal mech as an example. Players will use their hands and feet to interact with a virtual cockpit. Turn the vehicle on by using a series of buttons. Accellerate by pushing a lever forward. Etc. Fire various weapons using buttons in the cockpit. It would need to be a more slow paced game with less emphasis on twitch gameplay and more emphasis on immersion and strategy. It could be played online. You could perhaps have two players, a driver and a gunner. Use the RGB camera to be able to have small video screens in the cockpit that displays when they are talking. Voice commands could be used to send team mates orders or provide them with visual strategic insight.

The on screen visuals will need to have an indication of where your real world arm and possible feet positions are. If a joystick is a little to the right and forward, you would need an on screen visual showing where your virtual arm is located so that you gain an understanding of how to interact. Once a player is used to this, it would become more easy to just "know" how far that button is, or how to use that lever.
 
Vinci said:
People love Google 'cause they give everything they make out for free. The way Google and Microsoft operate are nowhere near the same.
Read what I was replying to and it might make some sense, context sensitive. I never claimed the way they operate overall was the same, but that they are "willing to chuck potentially billions of dollars on 'let's do something creative too and see what happens.'" which was said as if that was something bad. More money that goes to making new ideas the better, I don't care about the reasons behind it.
 
Psychotext said:
Flachmatuch needs a "Hates Microsoft, can't really explain why" tag. :lol

Errr...I can explain. I don't think I "hate" them though (too big and abstract for that), I just think their effect in general is mostly negative.
 
Vinci said:
How is tossing random stuff at a wall not 'uneducated'? That's not what Nintendo did at all. I'm not saying the Wii's success wasn't fortuitous, as that would be disingenuous, but the Wii Remote was heavily prototyped and tested long before Nintendo ever decided that it was worth heading in that direction. The company probably spends half of their development time on testing.

It's also not what Sony is doing. Theirs is very blatantly built around the Wii Remote with a different tech spin on it.



In your dramatization, Microsoft is willing to chuck potentially billions of dollars on 'let's do something creative too and see what happens.' Doesn't that sort of underline what Flachmatuch was discussing a moment ago about how MS operates and why it's able to do that? That's not normal business procedure for anyone. I detest MS for reasons unconnected to their sheer gravitational force, but I do understand that the power they're bringing into this industry is not a healthy thing. I'm just too selfish to really care most of the time so long as their efforts don't bite me in the ass.

1) i think they researched it and decided that it was creative and also to their advantage to do it. if that's uneducated then fine, it's uneducated. no problem.

2) i pretty much said that Sony ripped off the Wii remote and had the creative guys in house to make it work. no problem.

3) i didn't know Natal cost billions. i also didn't think you'd assume that i literally meant they were throwing billion dollar darts at the wall. by "try something creative and hope it works" i meant because no amount of prior testing will predict what the public wants. sometimes they want a wii sometimes they don't want an N64. it's all a gamble. but your view is cool too, maybe they're not good for this business. whatevz playa, no problem. when people start to "detest" and "hate" companies, i mean..... where do i go from there ?:lol
 
JaggedSac said:
Here are a couple:

/game ideas
Please tell me you didn't just write all that shit yourself.

The front door.

hall_front_door.jpg


Use it.
 
Flachmatuch said:
Errr...I can explain. I don't think I "hate" them though (too big and abstract for that), I just think their effect in general is mostly negative.

Why is their effect negative though. They use money to help promote other publishers games? Sony is a huge corporation did you complain this much with your buddies when they walked into the game hardware market?
 
Top Bottom