I figured but thought you might be unaware of some others.

The Eyetoy was okay to some people and offered some games comparable to many available for Kinect, only in lower resolution, etc. It actually had a game called "Kinetic" interestingly. It's worth a youtube of "eyetoy gameplay".

The activator was kinda cheesy but interesting for its' time and somewhat innovative, alluding to future possibilities. A youtube search of "Sega Activator Training Video" is highly recommended.

Here is an article I found that lists a few devices from the past:

http://gametheoryonline.com...

I remember the Virtual Boy. I wanted one when I was I was little and I guess we were fortunate nobody bought me one. Now they are probably collectors items. If I had a really big closet I might pick one up.

"I strongly believe that in order to usher in the true era of next-gen gaming, the peripherals that we use really need to evolve- as much as I like the standard controller, I think they present stumbling block for the enjoyment of true immersion."

So then we've been in the same console generations for decades. Who knew?

What is this "true immersion" you are trying to enjoy that controllers are c***-blocking? Have you visited the future and come back, and are now underwhelmed by our time's video games and its limiting controllers?

A controller is an interface. Every video game needs an interface. It's essential for the "game" part of things. To evolve the interface there needs to be in *improvement* on it, not just any old change. Up to now controllers have evolved effectively within their framework, and have continued to get better as means of interacting with our games. To call it a stumbling block even though there is currently nothing better available makes no sense to me. Perhaps we should have been slamming our faces against TV sets this whole time to make our characters move?

That's a bit harsh Fred. However I think you are both right. While controllers have become a lot better over the years, they haven't really changed the immersion level of gaming to any great degree. Yes they are an interface, however they are an interface of inputting command through button presses.

I think the future he's referring to is one that immerses us more into the games on a more physical level. In some ways motion controls do this, however the technology to do this effectively, something closer to what you may see in a sci-fi movie, is still pretty far off.

Edit:

A couple days ago there was an article about some new input method that MS patented. It looked to be more of motion control device that put you more into the game through using your body as opposed to button presses. It may not be the future, but those are the kinds of things that will change the way we play games in the future.

"So then we've been in the same console generations for decades. Who knew?"

I think you misunderstand the point I'm making. I'm saying that we've reaching a stage where the digital worlds players inhabit are getting morer and more complex and naturally, we need a more wholesome and intuitive method to interact with them.

So for example, imagine a game that is incredibly detailed where the physics are truly next-gen- like life-like water, grains of sand or even several objects on a table. With the standard controller, the most you can really do is just press a few buttons and move your analogue stick. Now imagine being able to virtually put your hands through that water, cause ripples, skim your finger along it, or pick up the grains of sand or various objects.

I mean, one of the reasons QTE sequences exit is that the sequences tend to be really cinematic and all that movement and action is difficult to handle via a simple controller interface. Try and imagine now, playing a horror game and you have to wipe the dust off the windshield off a car. On a controller, you'd investigate maybe at best, wiggling the analog stick with your thumbs left or right- with something like Kinect, you could wave your hands over the virtual windshield (and with better tech) actually have feedback on that.

"What is this "true immersion" you are trying to enjoy that controllers are c***-blocking? Have you visited the future and come back, and are now underwhelmed by our time's video games and its limiting controllers? "

Lol no, I haven't been to the future but look, you yourself have just indirectly implied that it is the future we are talking about. Some strides need to be made in technology to advance us to that level of interaction and these peripherals are laying the foundation for the future.

"To evolve the interface there needs to be in *improvement* on it, not just any old change. Up to now controllers have evolved effectively within their framework, and have continued to get better as means of interacting with our games."

I completely agree with you here.

"To call it a stumbling block even though there is currently nothing better available makes no sense to me."

As far as the tech is concerned in this day and age, yeah there appears to be nothing better than what we have but surely you can understand that we can't just stifle development simple because the status quo serves us for now?

Look, what I'm getting at is this; with the advent of a new generation of games, the game worlds featured in these games are going to be vastly more complex and detailed. Today, we press a button and an on-screen weapon fires. Tomorrow, we could not only be pressing the trigger but actually holding the gun itself.

I could even argue this point with current-gen tech. Take Mass Effect for example- if you want to use a biotic power like slam for example, you just press a button and you'll lift the enemy. Now how cool would it be if you could lift that enemy with your hands (like a Jedi's force power) and slam him in the direction you will. What would be more immersive? Flicking an analog stick in that direction, or actually feeling like you're in control?

The tech is already here- it just has to be implemented well.