From HDWarriors.com -
At this point it's starting to get old, and it's starting to become annoying. People complaining vehemently about the continued rise of motion controls in gaming, and acting as if their disdain and negativity holds any weight against the coming tide.
But what's the deal with the almost malicious opposition? Why are some gamers so angry that Nintendo's Wii is so successful, and Sony and Microsoft will soon have extensive motion control options of their own? Here are 5 reasons Gamers resist Motion controls:
In science fiction movies, one of the main pieces of futuristic technology is almost always motion controlled computer screens. The lead scientist often will rotate, enlarge, crop, or dramatically swipe away different data floating in the air in front of him. Thanks to video games, that fantasy is quickly becoming a reality. Here's a rundown of the gaming innovations in motion control by the big three.
I wonder if this person is aware of previous motion control technology like the Playstation 2 Eye Toy or Sega Activator.
I wasn't, but I was really only talking about this generation. Were they any good? Did they have good games?
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...
In fairness the article does say, this generation. Not that it was the first, best, most original or anything like that.
I mean Nintendo had a 3D handheld like 10-15 years ago that flopped because it just wasn't any good. Remember that it only displayed red colors and a black background?
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.
GenGAME writes: "Given the amount of support Wii MotionPlus is getting just at the Wii U launch – so far, more games than the peripheral had at its own summer 2009 launch – it seems to me that Nintendo’s trying to push MotionPlus as soon as possible to put the enhanced controller in the hands of as many people as possible early on in the Wii U life cycle."
Its still the same controller that got little support.. Only difference is the box & the sync button..
Good read, I agree that the motion+ controllers still have a lot of potential left especially with the upgraded hardware. I would love to see games like Skyrim with solid motion control as an option. That would be much better than yelling at your Kinect if it was well implemented.
lol, it was a no brainer when the game came out. Spend an extra $20 to get a controller that is worth $40. You can find them on ebay, however be prepared to spend at least $70 for one. And there is no guarantee it's in great condition.
I am super happy I got one, because they are indeed rare now.
Being able to use Wii accessories and software on the Wii U, is a good move by Nintendo.
HDTV, Motion Plus, Smartglass - all are increasingly 'as standard', but why? Aren't these "innovations" just making console gaming the preserve of the few?
i'm getting tired of these types of articles.
a console is 100% enough, a peripheral is just an extra gimmick nobody's forced to buy.
Are we done now ?
I disagree.
For the medium to evolve, a console can no longer be a glorified PC. A peripheral isn't necessarily a gimmick- a standard controller is a peripheral.
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.
Now, I'm not saying that Kinect or MOVE etc are good examples of the sort of tech I'm alluding to above but they are a foundation. I imagine a cross between a standard controller and some other tech. I really think that being content with the standard controller setup will prevent any progress.
"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.
Way to take my sarcasm without getting mad. I now have no choice but to reply without it from here on =p
There is a (perceived, on my part)distinction that perhaps I should have made clear from the start to facilitate this discussion; the type of tech you're looking forward to (and that most of us have fantasized about at least once or twice since childhood) is not something that I consider to fit in the framework of video-gaming. Most ideas about the future of gaming interfaces have to do with something that I'd call virtual reality, and it will likely surface in form other than video-game when we finally see a version of it that looks like our ideas of futuristic tech.
The distinction isn't one I make for the sake of splitting hairs though. We're talking about more than a controller evolving at that point. The TV needs to evolve at that point too, beyond the point of being a stationary window in a room, which is to say it can't even be a TV anymore. And the types of games we'd play would not resemble video games as we know them beyond the fact of the images we view being virtual constructs. Their mechanics and presentation are not suited to that type of interface.
The problem with controller-less gaming as it stands, that leaves people underwhelmed, is that we're trying to shove a drastically different interface into a pre-existing framework; one where the existing interface has evolved along with the medium for decades. The kinds of things that video games let us pull off are greatly facilitated by an interface that lets us pull of multiple commands in rapid succession, and with varying degrees of complexity. Replacing {forward, down, forward, fierce} with a series of body motions is something that is a downgrade in terms of efficiency, and video games need to simplify their mechanics to work that way. I know you acknowledged the shortcomings, and are speaking for the potential foundational groundwork being laid, just clarifying my stance on the current offerings.
I do think that there are controller/camera possibilities that are somewhat promising, but they all involve primary reliance on the controller, while having the peripheral (if we're talking about a camera-type) doing peripheral things. If we're talking games as we know them though, I feel like an interface that is built for rapid input is the key in that scenario though, which is why I champion it for gaming. I think when the drastically different interface (that works flawlessy, and in tandem with a visual interface that accommodates a virtual experience) comes along, we're going to be doing different things with it than beating up hordes of enemies, or executing 45-hit combos.
I get what you're saying and I guess you're right. I do concede that my visions for the future of gaming do seem a bit fanciful and maybe you're right, the gaming medium may not necessarily be the driving force for that kind of progression. But there is scope for it and I strongly believe it can be implemented in games, far more decisively than we have experienced today.
I guess at the end of the day, I just want to get plugged into the Matrix and torrent the Mila Kunis apk and erm, let loose.
People won't be satisfied until you can plug your mind into a machine ala The Matrix and "play" in a virtual reality.
It IS ENOUGH.
LISTEN: The only people trying to convince you/us that it's not enough, are the people trying to make money on OTHER things they want to sell us.
They are trying to " Gimmick " us away from the things they love.
They tell us A isn't enough and we need B. Then 4 years later they tell us B wasn't good enough we need C now.
They Use and dispose of great ideas all in the name of profit.
They need people to plant the seed/ Ideas in the people's minds though.
The gullible will believe anything.
Stay Smart.
I didn't know Halo was supposed to be "hardcore". All this time I thought it was just a game.
I don't believe in "hardcore" gaming. Just gaming. People should stop segregating themselves.
Motion controls won't replace the classic control system. At least not for a while.
Playing with motion controls won't make you lose weight or keep you fit. That was never the point of videogames. So if people are overweight or out of shape, is not because of videogames. It's because they haven't done anything else for themselves.
If companies want to tap into more casual audiences in by pulling people in with motion controls, then great.
But it's just something I won't go for. Not because I'm "hardcore", but because it's not my thing and honestly, I find it pointless when I can do the same action with the push of a button.
Three reasons why motion controls suck:
1. They don't work as well as a normal controller and, in many cases, are a lot worse by substituting simple button presses for ridiuclous movements
2. Most people play games to relax, not to wave their arms around
3. They don't improve gaming experiences
But I have my reservations, many games are not suited for motion controls, the Wii has shown many flaws in the motion controls, and how the lure of the casual market can damage games. Oh, and I am lazy - so what, I play games to relax, not work out.
In the Picture
Shoutin to his Fat assed mom
"Hey mom will you bring me a big tub of chocolate ice cream. my big fat ass needs some comforting cause i just got The RRoD "
Motion controllers is not suited for most games. Imagine trying to kill 500 enemies in a typical fps or action adventure game. Half way through I am sure most gamers would want to simply just press a button to slash/shoot to kill an enemy. Motion controllers is suited for very games like wii sports with very simple and short gameplay becuase most people I doubt can't cope slashing 500 enemies in gow 3 for a whole 10 hours.
I joked to my older brother who loves the wii. I told him why he wants to go backwards LOL. Since the dawn of time human race have been trying to autmate work to make life simpler. Think about it, pressing a button with your fingers is so much simpler than swinging your arm to hit a ball, why go backwards LOL