EyePet Review

By Dan Whitehead Published 11 October, 2009

Not just for Christmas or just plain not for Christmas?

Version tested: PlayStation 3

The most impressive things about EyePet sneak up on you. Take the way your new virtual pet casually jumps over your arm if you cross its path while activating one of its many toys and gadgets. Catch it unaware and the same movement accidentally knocks it over on its adorably furry little backside. And if your toe strays into the frame, it scampers over to investigate.

These little moments are so natural, and so casually confident in the way they sell the illusion that there really is a tiny sentient monkey creature on your floor, that you can easily take them for granted, and overlook the way that Sony's alternative to man's best friends is quietly pushing the PlayStation Eye in new directions. Well, relatively quietly.

You're introduced to the world of EyePet by a paternal scientist, who tells you he's researching these odd little beasts in a video that also explains what needs to be done to set up your camera - basically, place it somewhere around knee height, pointed down at the ground - and then walks you through the etiquette of EyePet care.

As a showcase of what console cameras and motion-sensing is capable of, what then follows deserves applause. The technology can't help but creak at times, but it's used for such endearingly whimsical aims that it can feel cruel to criticise. Sadly though, criticise we must, since the charming realisation of this digital lifeform doesn't always gel with the game-shaped box it's been squeezed into.

'EyePet' Screenshot 1

I instantly regret this screenshot.

Your pet arrives as an egg, and even this initial stage reveals frustrations that never quite disappear. First you must warm the egg by using a heater. The game comes with a "magic card", which is essentially a black plastic placard with a white square and a paw-print on it. The camera reads this image to work out which way up game objects will appear. So you place the card on the floor and, on-screen, a heater appears on top of it. You activate the heater with a button on the top, but you need to maintain a bizarre and frankly uncomfortable constant wafting motion to keep the button pressed long enough to warm the egg.

Once a crack appears, you rock the egg gently from side to side. It's here that the most significant obstacle comes into play - you can never fully ignore the fact that you're interacting with intangible objects, and the lack of sensory feedback makes finding the right rocking rhythm more hassle than it should be. Your hands float through and behind the object you're trying to "touch", and when it doesn't do what you want, there's no fallback other than to keep gesticulating.

Thankfully, once the little critter pops out of his shell, things pick up considerably. You can tickle him and he'll purr and coo and - eventually - roll over for tummy tickles. Drum your fingers on the floor and he'll chase and pounce like a kitten. Wiggle your fingers in the air, and he jumps to grab them.

It's very cute, but hardly the foundation of a satisfying game experience. That's where the EyePet science comes in. The Pet Programme in the pause menu takes you through a series of daily tests and challenges, introducing and evolving your interactions with your pet. The trampoline is fairly basic, but once you get the sketchbook you start to see just what the software can do.

Draw a picture on a piece of paper and hold it up to the camera and your EyePet will try to copy it. It only works with bold black outlines (marker pen is best, crayon is pretty terrible) but the effect is still both impressive and immersive. Microsoft's Natal may be able to extract emotional nuance from such interactions, but the simple thrill of seeing your doodle instantly imitated on-screen shows that there's life in the dear old webcam yet.

The illusion is, unfortunately, slightly spoiled once you realise you don't actually have to draw what the scientist tells you. I received effusive praise from the daft old sod despite (somewhat predictably) drawing a cartoon nob instead of a fish, and the on-screen results vary depending on the lighting. Sketches copied in daylight are crisp and near-perfect, while those done under electric light in the evening are often patchy and broken.

As fun as the sketching trick is, the game ups the ante by later giving you the ability to draw cars, planes and even robots that will then be turned into 3D objects for your EyePet to play with. Taking your furry pal flying on a plane you just scribbled, soaring from the lounge carpet, through the clouds and up to the moon, is a joyous moment. It's also hard not to be won over by the musical features, which allow you to sing to your EyePet and hear them sing the tune back to you in a high-pitched Mogwai trill. They can learn dozens of songs, and while complex arrangements are lost in translation it's still a lovely use of the PlayStation Eye's microphone.

For all these moments of easy charm, however, there are clumsier elements that recall the lumpy opening and tug away at the goodwill being generated by the lovely visuals. Loading times tend to the sluggish, while directions for some of the challenges are irritatingly vague, a problem which is compounded by the intangible nature of the experience.

'EyePet' Screenshot 3

Experiment 1: EyePets prove disappointingly resistant to crushing.

Unlocking the gardening set, for example, lets you grow flowers from your living room carpet - the EyePet digs the holes, you plant the seeds and your pet frolics in the spray when you water them. But then the instruction comes to "tap the base of the flower to pick it". I tried for five minutes to no avail, flicking hopelessly at the flower, and then somehow it just worked and the flower vanished.

The lack of feedback or explanation blights a few too many of the game's many challenges. There's one where you have to get your face down on the floor and take a photo of you with your EyePet - but I've yet to get a snap that fits the criteria. After multiple failed attempts, I still don't know what I'm getting wrong.

Ditto for a challenge where you need to get a photo of a butterfly landing on your EyePet's face. I grew the required flower, and dressed my pet accordingly, but the butterfly refused to play along. Then there's the first robot challenge, where you must steer your hand-drawn android around and smash watermelons. I picked up the baseball bat, I worked out that you have to hold down the button to charge your attack (since that's not explained), but I couldn't break the bloody watermelons and thus the robot toy remained off-limits. The game's minimal approach only makes sense when goals are clear and easily achieved through casual experimentation.

There's also the small matter that most of the gadgets require you to hold the card face on to the camera at all times. Tilt it away and the gadget blinks out of existence. Add in the slightly disorientating effect of the camera's reversed-then-flipped mirror image of your room, and a lot of simple functions prove to be a confusing chore for the kids.

That's how the tech has to work, of course, but you try explaining that to a peeved seven-year-old who just wants to feed their pet a cookie. My two youngsters were both enchanted by EyePet, and clearly thrilled at the possibilities, but it soon became clear that it was going to be me doing the actual challenges while they watched, shouted instructions and occasionally wiggled their fingers to get the attention of our pet, Trumps (yes, we're a lowbrow brood).

Quantity of content isn't a problem, since you're showered with new toys, costumes and building materials with generous frequency. Curiously, despite the daily structure, you can unlock days and days' worth of stuff just by continuous play - it's more than a little weird to have Science Man popping up to welcome you to Day Four when you've only been playing for an afternoon.

You can also send back Pet Reports by scanning your pet's vital signs - hunger, cleanliness, mental stimulation and exercise - but the game only lets you file a report when all the stats are fine. Not only is this an outrageous example of cherry-picking data (what kind of scientific institute are you running, sir?) but it makes it clear that it's pretty much impossible to do anything too harmful to your pet.

This is the other major flaw in the EyePet design. There's not really anything at stake, and your pet doesn't show any signs of evolution or growth. There are 15 "days" adding up to 60 challenges, but it doesn't take long for them to feel a little samey. Apart from songs, there aren't many persistent skills or tricks your EyePet can be taught, so you're mostly doing stuff for the sake of doing stuff. This is fine in those early days of "Aaah!" and "Oooh!" but it doesn't say much for the long-term prospects of EyePet ownership.

'EyePet' Screenshot 2

His bubble is casting a shadow on my floor! What black magic be this?

Tamagotchis may be far less sophisticated, but they provide both a more robust real-time challenge, as well as more incentive to play the doting parent. EyePets all look the same, underneath whatever hairstyles and clothes you choose, and there's neither any danger of them dying nor the potential for them to evolve into something unique.

The lack of online functionality also feels like an opportunity missed. There's an EyePet Store, of course, where you can download new trinkets - some of which will actually be free - but the absence of any social features is baffling. Swapping items would give you more incentive to keep grinding for unlockables, for example, while the option to visit with other EyePets in a separate communal area, thus opening the game up from the patch of carpet in front of the TV, would be most welcome.

You can't even send photos or movie clips to friends from inside the game. You have to first export them to the relevant PS3 folder, and then send them via normal messaging. When Noby Noby Boy can upload clips to YouTube during gameplay, EyePet's poor use of the PS3's online capability is very disappointing.

Of course, a game about a big-eared monkey thing was never going to be all about technical aspirations. That's not how it's supposed to be played - or, more accurately, played with. It's as much a toy as a game and for all the wobbles in the interface and some illogical structural quirks, it's all but impossible to dislike. If you find the concept attractive then there's certainly enough here to warrant further investigation and, when everything clicks, it's as charming an experience as you'll find on the big-boy consoles.

It's just a shame that while EyePet has clearly been designed to stretch the PlayStation Eye hardware, it never tests the boundaries of the virtual life genre with the same vigour.

6 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Dan.

About Dan Whitehead

Dan has been writing for Eurogamer since 2006 and specialises in RPGs, shooters and games for children. His bestest game ever is Julian Gollop's Chaos.

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Whitehead archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (93) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • beep #1 2 years ago

    SOLD!!!

    Or to be more accurate, no thanks.

  • Sid-Nice #2 2 years ago

    Wye aye pet.

  • George-Roper #3 2 years ago

    Expected this from the offset. Mediocre gadget.

  • mowgli #4 2 years ago

    Lol.

  • RobotRocker #5 2 years ago

    Cant wait for the Sony Defence Force reaction in the morning.

    Edit: -19 already? Awwww, you shouldn't have :3
    Edited by 2 at 12/10/09 @ 12:54

  • El-Dev #6 2 years ago

    "you can never fully ignore the fact that you're interacting with intangible objects"

    Natal is fucked(I jest).

    I'm guessin kids won't really care about the faults of this game, afterall I'm assuming it would really only be kids who play this game.

  • aphexstwin #7 2 years ago

    3 page review for a camera game probably aimed at pre teens and a really sparse 2 page review for opflash. really eg, what the fuck is going on....?

  • Pro_Gamer #8 2 years ago

    Fuck the mainstream gamers. they are RUINING gaming with shit like this. Look at NINTENDO. :(

  • stevetuck #9 2 years ago

    im actually quite dissapointed :p this looked kinda fun at e3... then i watched the video and it seemed pretty crap... then i read the review (or just look at the score) and it gets average.... oh well heh :)

  • SeesThroughAll #10 2 years ago

    Considering the target audience (children), and the fact that it actually isn't exactly a brilliant game (nor did anybody expect it to be), why write such a lengthy review about a glorified Eye Toy tech demo?

  • Stoatboy #11 2 years ago

    re: "Considering the target audience (children), and the fact that it actually isn't exactly a brilliant game (nor did anybody expect it to be), why write such a lengthy review about a glorified Eye Toy tech demo?"

    To explain why such a highly-touted and anticipated title turns out to be just a glorified tech demo, perhaps?

  • smelly #12 2 years ago

    @apextwin : Quote "3 page review for a camera game probably aimed at pre teens and a really sparse 2 page review for opflash. really eg, what the fuck is going on....?"


    Hmm.. lets see now.. an innovative product which requires a lot of explaining to explain what it is and what it does, and whether or not the idea actually works.... Against yet another FPS game... Hmmm..

    Something tells me the fps game doesnt need as much explaining? You run, you point your cursor over things, hit the fire button, run some more.. just like you do in every fps.. but it's better than fps X but not as good as fps Y.

    I like that you mention this is aimed at "pre teen" market.. No doubt you're a grown up mature teenager now wanting your fix of grown up and mature things.. who think that the only games which should ever be made are those with guns? Dont worry - you'll grow out of it.. usually after you first get interested in girls... THEN you'll see the appeal of something like this.. (hint for when you start dating - girls love playing with this sort of stuff, it's great to have around the house for when they come back.. much better than showing them your latest fps anyhow)


    Edited by 1 at 12/10/09 @ 02:36

  • smelly #13 2 years ago

    PS : This part of the review made me sigh... "it's as charming an experience as you'll find on the big-boy consoles."

  • smelly #14 2 years ago

    I dunno i hate all this people trying to be "mature" about playing video games.

    FFS! Games machines are toys.. We .. Are.. Playing.. With.. Toys..

    No amount of blood or "mature" gameplay will hide that, or make it any more mature, or "grown up", or "big boy" than a kid running around a field with a stick going "dakka dakka".

    The sooner kids realise there's nothing grown up with playing games.. the better .. then we can get over this snobery of "big boy console" or "mature game", etc etc... Then we can finally get back to enjoying games rather than worrying about whether or not they're grown up enough..

  • 3william56 #15 2 years ago

    El-dev - I don't think you are jesting. However sophisticated Natal (or the Eyetoy minus the PSP*nis) gets, waving your hands through thin air and gurning at a webcam is going to get boring very quickly. The Wii shows that motion control is great, but without something tangible in your hand, even if it is a cheap plastic steering wheel or dodgy glowing bell end on a stick, it will require enormous amounts of novel reactions to movement to keep a game/toy interesting for more than a few minutes. MS definitelty has the tech, but whether they can come up with a compelling use for it is the really big question.

  • ChthonicEcho #16 2 years ago

    You look like House, Dan.

  • Pro_Gamer #17 2 years ago

    ".. then we can get over this snobery of "big boy console" or "mature game", etc etc..."

    Oh BOO HOO you can't 'get over it' call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance

  • Daymare #18 2 years ago

    You look like House, Dan.

    Or better yet, like Dan Greenwalt!

  • makeamazing #19 2 years ago

    Sounds a shame, but then I am not buying it for me I will be buying it for my kids.... who i am sure will probably enjoy it more than dan :D

  • Pirotic #20 2 years ago

    Only a 6? But.. but... look at the little fella! Sony won't feed him if you give him less than an 8, he'll be thrown in a black bag and sunk to the bottom of some river!

  • teabagger #21 2 years ago

    Hasn't anyone at EG got kids that they can put in front of this, y'know to actually review it against something a bit closer to the target market?

  • NotSoSlim #22 2 years ago

    Been delayed in US til next year, big patch coming I think

    Also it's cheap on play.com so if you have kiddies why not?? Echoing what someone else said maybe have kids play it n give there thoughts. Same with natal when that's released
    Edited by 1 at 12/10/09 @ 08:50

  • DDevil #23 2 years ago

    teabagger - if you actually READ THE REVIEW you will see Dan has two kids who both "assisted" him with the review.

  • Daymare #24 2 years ago

    Hasn't anyone at EG got kids that they can put in front of this, y'know to actually review it against something a bit closer to the target market?

    Did you actually, y'know, read the review?

    Edit: Ah, darn it, DDevil
    Edited by 1 at 12/10/09 @ 08:55

  • Negotiator #25 2 years ago

    Another fail for Sony, oh dear, nevermind. Milo is on his way, with Pete driving.

  • systems #26 2 years ago

    Did you get a manual with it this time Dan (cough, Risen, cough)?
    Edited by 1 at 12/10/09 @ 09:07

  • Toothball #27 2 years ago

    I've just disabled images on my browser to get rid of whatever that creature is off the front page of this site. I don't think this is a game for me.

  • kangarootoo #28 2 years ago

    @smelly

    Good posts (though I never thought I would say it). Games consoles are toys. Truth.

  • jjolley #29 2 years ago

    Reading this review does demonstrate the concerns folks are going to have about both ms and Sony's motion control systems. As a product, EyePet is certainly an interesting idea. We're buying it ourselves, just for giggles and it's not actually all that expensive either. The issues with the challenges i'm sure will be fixed with a patch and i'm guessing there will be many of them. I don't really have anything else to say, just that I hope people at least give it a look and see for themselves. The review comes over a little harsh in places, but I guess it's an adult writing for adults, plus it's probably one of those games that's very hard to review and quantify.

  • SeesThroughAll #30 2 years ago

    Re: "To explain why such a highly-touted and anticipated title turns out to be just a glorified tech demo, perhaps?"

    Was it that highly-touted? Sure enough, SCE do love their moneys and released this as a full-price Blu-Ray title, but this was nowhere as hyped as the likes of R2, for example.

    It was mentioned in interviews as an argument for "Eye Toy tech isn't obsolete yet". Same thing for the "sphere" launch (or whatever those dildos are called now), expect nothing but average mini-games to be released with the thing.
    Edited by 1 at 12/10/09 @ 09:24

  • mgillespie #31 2 years ago

    Clearly this thread will be full of idiot Halo 3 drones telling us how they knew EyePet would suck.. It's a shame Xbox owners are such morons and can't grasp the fact this is casual gaming.

  • optimusprym8 #32 2 years ago

    I'll pick it up as have the PS3 camera that hasn't been touched since Eye of the Repepitive as I like new gaming experiences and interaction methods.

    Plus I want to know what it actually does when you draw a comedy cock on a piece of paper and hold it up to realise ingame.

  • Les #33 2 years ago

    "This is the other major flaw in the EyePet design. There's not really anything at stake, and your pet doesn't show any signs of evolution or growth."

    ?!

    I know this is a gaming site but you'd expect a bit more open-mindedness of the video game 'professionals' when assessing the evolution of digital entertainment... But maybe I'm too optimistic.

  • rotmm #34 2 years ago

    @SeesThroughAll. "Was it that highly-touted? Sure enough, SCE do love their moneys and released this as a full-price Blu-Ray title, but this was nowhere as hyped as the likes of R2, for example."

    I think it has been hightly touted... in the UK at least.

    Sure, the PR focus hasn't been on the usual sites that titles such as Killzone and Uncharted tend to get previewed on, but I've seen more TV advertising for EyePet than any other PS3 titles at present. Enough that "She's Got Me Dancing" is stuck in my mind as being tied to EyePet.

    As an aside, I can't recall seeing a single Uncharted 2 TV ad so far.

  • SeesThroughAll #35 2 years ago

    @rotmm:
    My personal experience was in Portugal and Belgium. It certainly hasn't been heavily marketed in big shops from neither of these countries.

    As an aside, I can't recall seeing a single Uncharted 2 TV ad so far.

    Now that you mention it, neither do I.

    This probably has to do with the target audiences: games that they expect to sell to casuals need a lot more TV advertising to gather consumer awareness, whereas hardcore titles need little more than word-of-mouth.
    Edited by 1 at 12/10/09 @ 09:47

  • Buran #36 2 years ago

    A good advance about how absurd will be Natal and Wand/Sphere/whatever. And people still putting hopes in.

  • markyHD #37 2 years ago

    Well written review, ignore the bitches.

    I have two young lads, 2 and 4, so this will certainly give them that "how the fuck is dad doing that" face that I love :D

    Let's hope the price is reasonable, £14.99 PSN price would be a day one for me at least.

  • rotmm #38 2 years ago

    @SeesThroughAll. "This probably has to do with the target audiences: games that they expect to sell to casuals need a lot more TV advertising to gather consumer awareness, whereas hardcore titles need little more than word-of-mouth."

    That's true. However, I personally think the significant advertising for EyePet also has to do with Sony's positioning of the PS3 as a family console. I think they view it as this years LBP and are putting a lot of spend behind it to further their "casual" and "family" goals.

  • Mkwone #39 2 years ago

    i may be 23 but

    A; i'm a big softy who loves anything adorable

    B; i'm very simple minded (i'm still sniggering at the words Trumps)

    I think i'll give this a try in a few months maybe after a price cut

  • Les #40 2 years ago

    "Let's hope the price is reasonable, £14.99 PSN price would be a day one for me at least."

    As someone else pointed out already, the disc-only version isn't too expensive on play.com (€ 23.49 or GBP 17.99). Certainly within my impulse-buy range... ;)

  • BigE0n #41 2 years ago

    I would like to have read a little more on how badly the game is affected by low light conditions, and as an aside I think this is a great idea just not well implemented. Surly it wont be long before Microsoft follow suit and produce something similar for Natal probably with the Viva Piñata Animals involved and a use of the Avatars to boot.

    Kids get a great kick out of this and being able to tap the floor etc makes it easier for them to interact with the game.

  • lambtron #42 2 years ago

    That thing is so hideously ugly.

  • septimus #43 2 years ago

    This lack of tactile feedback is going to mess up all these 'games'. EyeToy and Natal will both suffer from it.

  • Widge #44 2 years ago

    I just can't think why I'd want to own this beyond the technical curiousity.

  • DrDamn #45 2 years ago

    I think the review could have had a lot more about how much the kids got out of it and less what the reviewer wanted. As an experience it's clearly aimed at a very young age group (3-8 years) and could have done with a lot more focus on that. Does a 5 year old give a monkeys about online capabilities for example?

  • Les #46 2 years ago

    "dont think this will be a big sucess for sony as ninty have the market wrapped up(with more style i might add) plus once NATAL is released next xmas sonys eyetoy "games" will look very old hat indeed."

    I don't think this will be a huge success in the sales charts, but then again, it probably didn't cost tens of millions to create. But I like video games diverging into new experiences that don't just consist of shooting things and/or gathering XP.

    It's aimed at kids/the casual crowd and I don't expect anyone to get a PS3 just for this. However, it's another game in the PS3's casual library and won't hurt its appeal.

    As for Natal, I'd be hugely surprised if it sees the light of day next year. Depends a bit on the success I guess of the Sony wands. If they sell like hot cakes, MS will rush Natal out at a high price and with some crap mini-games. If they don't, MS will get more confident in their vapourware approach and sit on the tech a bit longer...

  • jonbwfc #47 2 years ago

    @rotmm "As an aside, I can't recall seeing a single Uncharted 2 TV ad so far."
    I've seen plenty. Possibly being targeted at certain audiences?

  • mgillespie #48 2 years ago

    Seems Eurogamer have marked this down because there is "no sensory feedback", so lets see if they mark every single Xbox title down that supports Natal... Of course they won't because it's on their beloved XBotch.

    All this review does is highlight how Eurogamer review stuff. rule for Sony and Nintendo products, and another rule for anything made by their sponsor/lead advertiser Microsoft...

  • kangarootoo #49 2 years ago

    @mgillespie

    Paranoid fanboys see wehat they want to see.

  • Ornithophobe #50 2 years ago

    Please put something else in the top article slot, it's face is scaring me.

  • rotmm #51 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo,

    And they don't get much more "fanboy" than mgillespie.

  • davisorle #52 2 years ago

    Well they had to do it after the Natal announcement even if it got a bad review here or not. Sony knows how to try to turn the atention to them form the worried fans. Looks funny specially if you were able to crash it etc your pet. Anyhow, not for everyone even if it was a 9 or 10. Even I expected it to be better than this.

  • jjolley #53 2 years ago

    I decided to see if there were any good demonstrations of the eyepet program. Youtube came up with this one, and it seems easy enough for a child to manage. The link is at:
    http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=fZiaT8ADeUU

  • kangarootoo #54 2 years ago

    Good link. P.s. the kid in the vid does look a little young for this, as she gets distracted pretty quickly. The guy in the vid seemed to spend more time with it than her. 6-8 might be the right age to stay attentive. That said, the kid in the vid is enjoying it all and spending time fun with her Dad, which is no bad thing.
    Edited by 1 at 12/10/09 @ 13:41

  • GreyBeard #55 2 years ago

    I'm not disputing any of Dan's comments, but to be fair you either accept the limitations of this kind of product or you don't.

    I've been banging on for months about only certain "mimed" actions feeling natural, particularly when the object being interacted with is supposed to have a life of its own. Its basically insoluble without some kind of mechanism to provide resistance! The only workaround is to restrict interactions to motions that are explosive and outgoing like kicks or throws because at least there your own bodyweight (specifically the weight of your foot or fist) gives some sensation of resistance.

    Stroking or pulling an intangible object is always going to feel disconnected, because you are physically disconnected from what you are purportedly reacting to!

    Beyond that though, complaining that the simulation doesn't run real time (i.e. a "game" day of training doesn't equate to a 24hr period) is a bit daft as you can't expect people to put in hours every day, or enforce long periods of downtime between valid training sessions.

    Lastly, bemoaning the fact that you can't make your pet sick or die due to mistreatment is just missing the point of the product. Having a sick pet shouldn't be "fun" and the player shouldn't be encouraged to engineer the situation. I mean seriously would any responsible publisher put out a "virtual kitten torture kit"?

    Never mind the rating implications of including such a feature-set, which has to be a major concern when your primary target audience is small children.

  • Widge #56 2 years ago

    I also think Sony had to do the Eyepet in face of Natal. I was particularly impressed how they managed to time travel to 1 year before the Natal announcement to first show it to the world.

  • Les #57 2 years ago

    "I also think Sony had to do the Eyepet in face of Natal. I was particularly impressed how they managed to time travel to 1 year before the Natal announcement to first show it to the world."

    lol

    Evil Sony. Finally, MS comes up with something original and they ruin it through time travel... ;)

  • rotmm #58 2 years ago

    @Widge, "...how they managed to time travel to 1 year before..."

    They did it with 'Teh Power of da Cell"

  • jjolley #59 2 years ago

    At kangarootoo:
    Not seeing the video myself I can't comment. She did seem a little young, but the interaction with the parent was an eyeopener. The other interesting thing I noted was the interaction between the game's narrator and the person playing. Also, the fact that the system didn't seem confused at who was manipulating the onscreen objects. This has a lot of new media type implications as well:
    What exactly constitutes story in games of this sort? What, if any, interactions detract from telling a compelling story? Also, given our need to be a part of the story, do we make connections to the virtual pet as we would another character, or are we indeed creating emotional impact by the simple actions we take with the augmented reality stuff?

    I'm actually glad I found this link because it offers up interesting viewpoints on how this technology will advance specific classes of game interaction and/or narrative potential.

  • Negotiator #60 2 years ago

    It' a sad day for Sony, this was just a cash-in from what Nintendo have been doing for years and a stop gap until Natal and Milo and Kate takes gaming to another level.

  • Ergates_Antius #61 2 years ago

    @PRO_Gamer

    You are the absolute epitomy of mainstream gaming. No you not see that? Do you seriously believe that ODST* is in someway notmainstream? What on earth would lead you to draw that conclusion?

    I suggest you shut the fuck up before you make youself look even more foolish (though I'm not sure that's possible any more).


    *and Halo 3, and Halo Wars, and pretty much anything with the word Halo in the title...

  • El-Dev #62 2 years ago

    @Negotiator,

    So you'd rather groom an 8 year old boy than an EyePet?

  • electrolite #63 2 years ago

    Another comments thread, another bout of despair about the state of gaming. Not the games, but the people who play them and post about them on the 'net

    @ "Pro"_Gamer, Negotiator, mgillespie, donnie080208

    Go and stand in front of a mirror, take a long hard look at yourself, now breathe deeply while thinking about your life and what it is becoming. No, I mean really think about it.

  • LudusSolers #64 2 years ago

    In looking at what Sony are trying to achieve with this and Eye of Judgement, I applaud their desire to innovate and reckon they won't be far off from getting 'it' - whatever form that might take - right. In any case, at such a relatively low outlay, this may well be worth a purchase to keep my young family members occupied on the weekend while I enjoy this year's Heineken Cup... ^_^

    Also +1 to smelly for pointing out the irony of the term 'mature gaming'.

  • DanWhitehead #65 2 years ago

    @GreyBeard

    Beyond that though, complaining that the simulation doesn't run real time (i.e. a "game" day of training doesn't equate to a 24hr period) is a bit daft as you can't expect people to put in hours every day, or enforce long periods of downtime between valid training sessions.

    So why call them "days" in the game then? If they'd been called "sessions" it would make more sense. And even so, it wouldn't need to involve enforced downtime. Make more toys available at the start and you can still play with the EyePet outside of the Pet Programme - you just can't do all the challenges in a few days.

    Lastly, bemoaning the fact that you can't make your pet sick or die due to mistreatment is just missing the point of the product. Having a sick pet shouldn't be "fun" and the player shouldn't be encouraged to engineer the situation. I mean seriously would any responsible publisher put out a "virtual kitten torture kit"?

    Never mind the rating implications of including such a feature-set, which has to be a major concern when your primary target audience is small children.

    But maintenance has been a core part of the virtual pet craze for over a decade, and kids love looking after sick things. Just watch kids TV for an hour or so and you'll see plenty of ads for pet hospital toys.

    But I'm not even saying kids should be able to watch their EyePet grow sick and die horribly, simply that when there's no lasting penalty for neglect and no long-term evolution to reward careful nurturing, it leaves the game in a weird and slightly pointless limbo. What's the point of owning a pet that never grows or learns?

  • man.the.king #66 2 years ago

    @DanWhitehead

    "So why call them "days" in the game then? If they'd been called "sessions" it would make more sense"

    I fail to see how calling a unit of time in a game a "day" is misleading. They probably mean an in-game day, kind of like in Oblivion and Fallout 3, where an in-game day does not have to be as long as an actual 24-hour day (maybe not an exact apples-to-apples comparison, but I hope you get what I mean).
    Edited by 2 at 12/10/09 @ 18:31

  • RobotRocker #67 2 years ago

    @ El-Dev

    So this is what fanboyism has turned to? Accusations of Paedophilia?

    Good grief

  • Les #68 2 years ago

    "it leaves the game in a weird and slightly pointless limbo. What's the point of owning a pet that never grows or learns?"

    I think the main problem of your review is that you see this too much through the lens of a traditional game review. This is more an interactive diversion. And if it's entertaining to its target audience, than that's all the point it needs.

  • Les #69 2 years ago

    "I fail to see how calling a unit of time in a game a "day" is misleading."

    +1

  • Les #70 2 years ago

    "But maintenance has been a core part of the virtual pet craze for over a decade, and kids love looking after sick things. Just watch kids TV for an hour or so and you'll see plenty of ads for pet hospital toys."

    But that doesn't mean that doctors should be allowed to make pets (or people) ill so that they can cure them... Not very ethical in my book at least.

  • goralka_halka #71 2 years ago

    it's cute

  • kangarootoo #72 2 years ago

    @Les

    I don't agree with everything in the review, but I think you and a few others are stretching things a little here. Wheeling out accusations of a lack of ethics is a dramatic strawman attempt to put words in Dan's mouth.

    All he said was that SOME degree of maintanence (whether that be maintaining health, wealth, happiness, or variety of fashionable and current wardrobe options) is an important (if not fundamental) part of any pet type game. Tamagotchi and The Sims have both been doing this for years, with more or less extreme results if the player is neglectful.

    Nintendogs did the same thing. Neglecting your puppy didn't make it turn green and bleed from the eyes. It just looked sad, didn't want to play with you, and so on.

    Whether you agree with all points in the review (I agree that several are missing the audience, regardless of whether Dan's kids were present during play testing), the concept of challenging the player to keep their pet in fine fettle is surely pretty core to the pet owning experience?
    Edited by 2 at 12/10/09 @ 22:30

  • Les #73 2 years ago

    "Wheeling out accusations of a lack of ethics is a dramatic strawman attempt to put words in Dan's mouth."

    I don't claim he's unethical, I just don't think he thought things through well enough. EyePet is in some senses much more 'realistic' than Sims or Tamagotchi (don't know about Nintendogs) and letting young children (who probably aren't old enough to carry the responsibility for a real pet) experience a suffering virtual animal as a consequence of their 'lack' of capability isn't a good thing in my book. Nor is the potential of turning it into a 'torture' game for the sick of mind.

    "All he said was that SOME degree of maintanence (whether that be maintaining health, wealth, happiness, or variety of fashionable and current wardrobe options) is an important (if not fundamental) part of any pet type game. Tamagotchi and The Sims have both been doing this for years, with more or less extreme results if the player is neglectful."

    My point is that it doesn't try to be a similar type of 'game' as the other two. That can be grounds for not liking it but I contest that maintenance should be part of an experience like EyePet. It's more a toy than a game and toys don't have to come with a 'gameplay' framework to be entertaining.

  • kangarootoo #74 2 years ago

    @Les

    "and letting young children (who probably aren't old enough to carry the responsibility for a real pet) experience a suffering virtual animal as a consequence of their 'lack' of capability isn't a good thing in my book"

    But you are assuming a kind of suffering that Dan did not specify. That is why I used the sarcastic Nintendogs example of bleeding eyes. You are assuming that Dan wants the pet to visibly suffer in some kind of nasty way, and basing your critisism on that assumption. Dan did not specify what kind of suffering he felt was appropriate. Perhaps a frowning pet that looks disinterested would do just fine?

    There are completely two seperate aspects of design being discussed. One is whether there should be a tangible penalty for not looking after your pet (and equally, a tangible reward for good pet care, as Dan also suggested).

    The other seperate issue is what form the penalty should take, shoulg it exist (bleeding eyes, or frowny face).

    You are crushing the two together, and then clouding the whole deal by assuming the worst when it comes to the penalty itself. And that assuming the worst of the second issue is being used as a stick to beat Dan's comments on the FIRST issue.

  • Les #75 2 years ago

    "But you are assuming a kind of suffering that Dan did not specify."

    "and there's neither any danger of them dying" Think that's specific enough.

    As for me mixing the two things together, you have a point regarding my first paragraph though in the second I clearly state that IMO the basic premise that something like EyePet should have maintenance-like gameplay is wrong.

  • kangarootoo #76 2 years ago

    "and there's neither any danger of them dying" Think that's specific enough."

    I'd missed that bit. Oops :D


    "I clearly state that IMO the basic premise that something like EyePet should have maintenance-like gameplay is wrong."

    That is fair enough.

  • GreyBeard #77 2 years ago

    @Dan

    I can't speak for the Eyepet developers, but having been round the block a couple of times on this type of product all I can say is that "day" is a little more kid-friendly than "session". And that type of thinking is going to colour a lot of the design process.

    Its kind of tricky in that you (as a designer) want to structure the game-flow so that the player isn't swamped at the start with new assets and mechanics ( which means you need blocks of steered gameplay to introduce stuff) and to feed the player a steady trickle of rewards to hold their attention longer term, but on the other hand don't want to suck all the fun and spontaneity by making the game too "on rails" or a series of rote activities that will soon become a chore to go through again and again.

    Striking a balance in that flow is bad enough with a pet that remains in a static state of health/fitness, but when you modify its needs and behaviours with a persistent physical simulation it gets even tougher to judge. The problem with going down that route is negative-feedback looping, where the player is punished for not treating their pet right by making that pet need more attention to rectify the problem.

    That's a realistic turn of events, but it isn't really fun! Especially as allowing a pet as quasi-realistic as the Eyepet to "suffer" might be a quite traumatic to little kids.

    I understand your criticisms, but you need to ask would its target audience share your views? Ultimately Eyepet is an interactive toy, not a simulation designed to train users on the finer-points of pet-care.



  • kangarootoo #78 2 years ago

    Well put (in particular the comments about negative-feedback looping). I am internally revising my thoughts about this as I write.

  • jambo74 #79 2 years ago

    Depends on what pets you get, if you know what I mean....

  • Madafunkola #80 2 years ago

    Can we get a little Sackboy EyePet? Please

  • Bloiffy #81 2 years ago

    Dan Whitehead is a WOOFY BEAR. Hello!

  • YourMessageHere #82 2 years ago

    it's all but impossible to dislike

    You what? I think this is a great idea, but there is no way in hell you'll get me near that revolting thing. It's like an icon of exploitative cuteness flown in direct from the Uncanny Valley; so over-designed to be cute and thus inescapably artificial that there's no way I would ever be able to fool myself into trying to relate to it as a creature. Even the screenshots make me shudder.

    @ smelly
    This isn't innovative, things like this have been around for a while, it's simply the first time it's been put on a console. It's not complex either, it has all the depth, and the intended age range, of a paddling pool, and it's obvious how to use it. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the review should have been shorter. However, to defend this and then characterise Flashpoint as "just another FPS" and claim that it deserves a smaller review...that's just plain ignorance. As for your amusingly mysogenistic comments on keeping it around the house for romantic purposes - that might be a good idea; any women who expressed interest rather than revulsion in this would be the ones who immediately get shown the door.

    Oh, and games are only toys if language and other people are also toys. To lump everything that happens in games under the category "playing" ignores the narrative aspect and the social aspect. I enjoy games as toys, but I also enjoy them as stories, and as shared experiences. Does that make books and films toys too?

    @Les & Greybeard
    Given the fucked up-ness of the modern world I expect plenty of people might see this as a way to train their sprogs to care for pets, and even so, kids are impressionable by nature, so in my view this game has a certain responsibility to uphold. It horrifies me that people's relationships with animals in media continues to be so subject to appalingly mixed or basically counterproductive messages, like this game. Pets do, of course, truly need care and maintainence, which requires attention and time, and inculcating an idea in kids that whatever they do and however neglectful they are, their pet will still be fine (and potentially inculcating the idea in unwitting parents that the kid can care for an animal because they can play this) is socially irresponsible. This should certainly have included some measure of bad consequences for neglect or good ones for attention. Thus it would also give kids the correct impression that taking the initiative in interacting with a pet will in turn mean that the pet interacts more with you. Far better, after all, if an EyePet gets a bit mangy than if your kitten dies.

  • Les #83 2 years ago

    "Oh, and games are only toys if language and other people are also toys."

    ?!

    "Does that make books and films toys too?"

    Toy (Oxford dictionary):
    • an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something : [as adj. ] a toy car.
    • an object, esp. a gadget or machine, regarded as providing amusement for an adult : in 1914 the car was still a rich man's toy.
    • a person treated by another as a source of pleasure or amusement rather than with due seriousness : a man needed a friend, an ally, not an idol or a toy.

    So no. Though as physical objects, books or the media carrier of a movie can be used in a toy-like manner (e.g. using books to build a doll house or using a DVD as a frisbee).

    "This should certainly have included some measure of bad consequences for neglect or good ones for attention. Thus it would also give kids the correct impression that taking the initiative in interacting with a pet will in turn mean that the pet interacts more with you."

    No it shouldn't. It's a freaking toy, meant as entertainment, not an educational pet care simulator.

    I fully agree that children can't be taught enough to properly care for animals but that's a job for parents, not interactive toys. IMHO the current trend of parents trying to transfer their responsibilities towards other parties (e.g. school teachers, sports coaches and even video games) is socially irresponsible.

  • YourMessageHere #84 2 years ago

    @ Les

    You appear to be wilfully misunderstanding so I shall rephrase what I said. Games have toylike aspects, of course, but that is not all they are. Toys cannot tell stories, but games can. Hence language should, by this logic, also be regarded as a toy, as ultimately making a story is to language what playing is to objects. Toys also have no inherent social aspect, whereas games do, both as multiplayer experiences directly shared beween people, and as replicatable experiences that can be indirectly shared with others, by talking about them and so on. Hence by this logic other people are also toys, as interpersonal relations and influencing the behaviour of others can be seen as the closest analogy to "playing" in terms of social interaction. Basically, games generally have more to them than toys.

    There's nothing intrinsically wrong with toys, of course, but to label games generally as toys is not wise. People may enjoy toys but they don't respect them, take them seriously or believe they can 'touch' you, whereas drama and literature, which games share just as much with as they do toys, is deeply respected. To call games toys is both a massive oversimplification and a feather in the cap of those who dismiss games as media out of hand because they believe that there is nothing to them but the toylike aspect.

    No it shouldn't. It's a freaking toy, meant as entertainment, not an educational pet care simulator.

    Sigh. This game is indeed purely a toy. "This is meant to be entertainment" is not, and has never been, a catch-all excuse for being badly thought through, however much people seem to think it is. That it is meant as entertainment does not in any way preclude it being educational, either overtly so, or (more likely if it is actually going to be fun for kids) being educational without appearing to be. Look how popular the tamagotchi was - a toy whose concept which was functionally identical and differed only in interface, yet tamagotchi could and did sicken and die; it made the concept much stronger.

    I fully agree that children can't be taught enough to properly care for animals but that's a job for parents, not interactive toys. IMHO the current trend of parents trying to transfer their responsibilities towards other parties (e.g. school teachers, sports coaches and even video games) is socially irresponsible.

    Obviously this is preferable, but games cannot accomplish this. They can however do whatever they can to ensure that this idea of responsible petcare is consistently presented. They just haven't.

  • smelly #85 2 years ago

    @YourMessageHere & Raajaa : If it makes you feel better and more grown up.. then yes you're right.. games arent toys.. now go and ask mummy if you can go play with your latest shooty game in your bedroom... But not before you've done your homework... There's a good boy.
    Edited by 1 at 14/10/09 @ 03:31

  • Les #86 2 years ago

    "Games have toylike aspects, of course, but that is not all they are."

    Don't say you're willfully misunderstanding me but I never made the claim that all games are toys, just said that this particular 'game' appears to be more an interactive toy than a game in the regular sense. If the reviewer insists on treating it like a regular game than he's bound to get disappointed.

    "This game is indeed purely a toy. "This is meant to be entertainment" is not, and has never been, a catch-all excuse for being badly thought through, however much people seem to think it is."

    It surely is not a catch-all excuse for being badly thought through things. I simply claim this isn't badly thought out as not every 'game' needs to have educational value IMHO. In this case, I think the developers made the right choice to make the EyePet experience as free-format as possible. That other people can't appreciate it's lack of pure gameplay mechanics, so be it. It's clearly not suited for them.

  • YourMessageHere #87 2 years ago

    Fair enough Les, I can't fault you there. I agree not all games or toys need to be educational, but I'd say all toys of this type are by nature learning experiences, so they have a responsibility to promote good behaviour. YMMV.

    Smelly, you seem to have a fairly advanced case of self-loathing/inferiority complex going on there. Have that looked at by someone who, unlike you, actually knows what they're talking about.

  • smelly #88 2 years ago

    >Smelly, you seem to have a fairly advanced case of self-loathing/inferiority complex

    YOU'RE the one that wont admit to himself that he's playing with toys.

  • man.the.king #89 2 years ago

    Some nice and (mostly) reasonable debates going on here - Les, kangarootoo, YourMessageHere, GreyBeard (Gandalf, is that you? ;)). If only all threads were like this (although I confess I do add to the immaturity in other threads too :) )
    Edited by 2 at 14/10/09 @ 20:33

  • Magellum #90 2 years ago

    It's innovative and interesting, I grant it that.

    But, the novelty will wear off rather quickly.

  • layleeloo #91 2 years ago

    Some of you are saying "oh I thought this looked good but its only mediocre"? Come on - since we saw it it was never going to earn great praise was it in face or current competition. But that isnt why people are interested in it - because it got great or bad reviews. I personally am interested in it simply because it different. Becoming sick of the same FPS, Racing games and other hash which gets churned out yearly which rarely get any better, I would rather have a look at this than invest in another FPS like Borderlands, Halo ODST etc - simply because they are just more of the same. Not saying that are bad - just more of the same. Thankfully occasionally something comes along a little different and fun - and while i may not be "great" or get great reviews - its something different from the norm, plus - the missus will probably like it which is always a winner in more ways then one! Hehe

  • kupocake #92 2 years ago

    "It's like an icon of exploitative cuteness flown in direct from the Uncanny Valley; so over-designed to be cute and thus inescapably artificial that there's no way I would ever be able to fool myself into trying to relate to it as a creature."
    Apologies for coming back to this over a month on, but I couldn't let this be said without applauding it. That thing. is hideous. I can't shake the idea that the designers made a proof of concept version with a black-sack of ebayed 'cute animal parts', and that this reanimated mishmash of natural creation is out there somewhere, eating the flesh of those who take it in, who cannot see the dark void of the vacant soul within its eyes.

    But that's just me.

  • db3 #93 2 years ago

    Not my cup of tea but It's well executed and my 4 year old daughter finds it delightful.