Controller Evolution
- Thread starter Extra Consideration
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But what if we used the two joysticks and put the buttons you need to control a game around the joysticks, but then made the joysticks a bit smaller so you could use them and still access the buttons without tangling your hands...airrazor7 said:
Wake up people, the joystick isn't dead, it just evolved into the controller stick.
Its evolve or die in a medium as fast moving as the gaming industry.
Also moviebob said that controllers look like symetrical piles of clay with buttons attached... has he not noticed that the controller fits almost naturally in the hand (except for the PS3 one which is too small for me) with little effort, hmm its almost as if its been designed that way?
Theres a reason they all have the same basic shape... because it works.
Also another point against movie bob (when have I EVER been known too make points against movie bob???) but he said there are no "entry levels" of games... just an inch of space away from where he mentioned farmville (and most of that inch was space between paragraphs). Seriously? Is there a more entry level game than farmville, it comes attached too a site millions use, requires very little to get started and then develops into a more complex game when you get more too manage as you prove that you have conquered previous stages...
If games are a flight of stairs that not everyone can climb, then farmville is a gradual ramp...
I think Yahtzee is right, he's just not *completely* right. The current generation of motion controls are cheap gimmicks. That doesn't mean that all motion control are cheap gimmicks.
As I type this, I am using Firefox as my internet browser. I have an add-on called 'FireGestures' (which is one of several such extensions), allowing me to use my mouse as a gestural interface. A quick swipe to the left to go back, a quick swipe to the right to go forward, an L-shape to close a window, and so on. It's quick and easy.
Many people have observed that sweeping gestures and whole-body movements make playing the game more work. And I agree with that assessment. However, the concept of a gestural interface does not require flailing around.
Let's go back a few years, to when the Wii was new. Commercials for Wii Sports show the players swinging the controller like a bat or a golf club. But when I actually played the game, I quickly discovered that you don't need to do that - and in fact, it's not even the most effective way to play. A short, quick flick of the wrist achieves a result that's as good or better than the flailing full-body movements.
And as far as I'm concerned, that's where the potential for motion control lies - the ability to make quick flicks that are no more taxing than pressing a button, and the ability to point the controller at the screen and use it as a 3d mouse. Also, like MovieBob, I think the best part of the Wii control scheme is the ability to have an on-screen pointer (which is actually better, in my opinion, than either a computer mouse or a touchscreen - it moves where you point, without your hand blocking your view.)
The ideal I hope we can work towards is something like a Kinect, but able to track eye and finger movements rather than (or in addition to) the full body movements. If you can move your finger an inch, or even a few inches, and give a command, then that's not a appreciably more work than moving your thumb from one button to another. Point at the screen and have a cursor (or targeting crosshairs) appear where you point. Give commands with simple gestures - for example, to pause the game you hold up your hand, palm outwards, in the universal signal for 'stop', rather than adopting a full-body pose as the Kinect currently requires.
There will always be a place for sticks and buttons, simply because interface elements like 'push forward on the stick to move forward' or 'hold down the button to keep firing' are not as easily replicated by motion control.
(Incidentally, this is why I think the Wii's 'nunchuck' controller is still a vastly superior motion-control device, even years later - it combines a fairly traditional thumbstick, d-pad, face and trigger buttons with a point-and-click interface and simple motion control for both hands. The Move is more heavily focused on the motion control, and the Kinect is entirely reliant on it.)
Anyway, where was I?
Ah, yes. I think that (perhaps barring the sort of Direct Neural Interface which Yahtzee alludes to) there will always be a place for traditional controls; however, if developers are willing to move past the 'standing up and acting out the motions because that is what looks good on the TV advertisements' gimmick, and acknowledge that most of the time you want to enter commands with as few movements as possible, Motion Control can and should have a place right alongside them.
As I type this, I am using Firefox as my internet browser. I have an add-on called 'FireGestures' (which is one of several such extensions), allowing me to use my mouse as a gestural interface. A quick swipe to the left to go back, a quick swipe to the right to go forward, an L-shape to close a window, and so on. It's quick and easy.
Many people have observed that sweeping gestures and whole-body movements make playing the game more work. And I agree with that assessment. However, the concept of a gestural interface does not require flailing around.
Let's go back a few years, to when the Wii was new. Commercials for Wii Sports show the players swinging the controller like a bat or a golf club. But when I actually played the game, I quickly discovered that you don't need to do that - and in fact, it's not even the most effective way to play. A short, quick flick of the wrist achieves a result that's as good or better than the flailing full-body movements.
And as far as I'm concerned, that's where the potential for motion control lies - the ability to make quick flicks that are no more taxing than pressing a button, and the ability to point the controller at the screen and use it as a 3d mouse. Also, like MovieBob, I think the best part of the Wii control scheme is the ability to have an on-screen pointer (which is actually better, in my opinion, than either a computer mouse or a touchscreen - it moves where you point, without your hand blocking your view.)
The ideal I hope we can work towards is something like a Kinect, but able to track eye and finger movements rather than (or in addition to) the full body movements. If you can move your finger an inch, or even a few inches, and give a command, then that's not a appreciably more work than moving your thumb from one button to another. Point at the screen and have a cursor (or targeting crosshairs) appear where you point. Give commands with simple gestures - for example, to pause the game you hold up your hand, palm outwards, in the universal signal for 'stop', rather than adopting a full-body pose as the Kinect currently requires.
There will always be a place for sticks and buttons, simply because interface elements like 'push forward on the stick to move forward' or 'hold down the button to keep firing' are not as easily replicated by motion control.
(Incidentally, this is why I think the Wii's 'nunchuck' controller is still a vastly superior motion-control device, even years later - it combines a fairly traditional thumbstick, d-pad, face and trigger buttons with a point-and-click interface and simple motion control for both hands. The Move is more heavily focused on the motion control, and the Kinect is entirely reliant on it.)
Anyway, where was I?
Ah, yes. I think that (perhaps barring the sort of Direct Neural Interface which Yahtzee alludes to) there will always be a place for traditional controls; however, if developers are willing to move past the 'standing up and acting out the motions because that is what looks good on the TV advertisements' gimmick, and acknowledge that most of the time you want to enter commands with as few movements as possible, Motion Control can and should have a place right alongside them.
whoa...you um, really ran with that afterthought at the end of my post. I see your point but I think you missed mine. The other person that quoted me, Korne, hit a lot closer to the mark. You're probably right about how the joystick evolved into the analog stick, but an analog stick does not give the same feel of immersion as a joystick for something like a realistic flight simulator since the joystick's appearance and feel resembles that of an actual flight control stick versus and analog stick. Evolution of control in a physical sense of immersion was along the lines of my point which is why Korne's mention of Steel Battalion is a good example. The devs of the game may not have completely achieved their goal with the controller but anyone can tell they were trying to simulate a realistic experience of piloting a mech with their unique controller design.ironlordthemad said:
So, maybe in a sense of simulation, joysticks are kind of dead.
Yes, I know there are flying games for the current gen consoles but one does not fly a real jet with their thumbs.
I also disagree with MovieBob's point about how there are no training wheels for gaming. Wasn't that the whole point of the Nintendo Wii? We mighty veteran hardcore gamers stand proudly on our soap boxes, scoffing and denouncing the wiggle and waggle of the wiimote because it did not grant the experience we demand as hardcore gamers, but isn't that the point? Was it not the purpose of the Wii to introduce gaming to the crowd we dubbed "non-gamers"? MovieBob, I know you may have overlooked it, especially since it sounds like you only have eyes for the XB360, but there are your training wheels, the wiimote and nun-chuck.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm having trouble drawing a line between what I said, and what you responded. Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?Sir John the Net Knight said:
Help me out, here. You quoted a post in which I discuss (at length) my belief that motion should be moving past flailing, full-body gestures and instead use short, controlled hand movements. In your response... you proceed to talk about how flailing full-body motions are bad.
Um... yes? That was kind of my point - that 'stand up and act out what your character is doing' is not the whole of what motion control offers, or even the most notable aspect.
I assume you use a computer, correct? By any chance, do you like to use a mouse? Why do you think we use that and not, say, a joystick to move the on-screen cursor around? I'll tell you: it's because it gives a more direct mapping of your physical movements to the input. Move hand right, cursor goes right. Move hand left, cursor goes left. That's motion control, in its purest form.
The Wiimote or Move controller are the next generation of mouse; a controller that moves in the same plane as the cursor (so 'up' is 'lift up' rather than 'push forward') and which can (potentially, at least) give you a third dimension of control, for 3d navigation. Once we get to the point where you don't have to hold a controller, it can reliably track small hand movements? I absolutely expect this sort of thing to become the default interface.
An entertaining column, but there's... a walrus at the dinning table.
What is MovieBob even doing in this column? Doesn't he review movies or something? He's the guy who saw it fit to spoil the ending to Inglorious Basterds in his goddamn review. You can tell the other two are either politely ignoring his more inane assertions, or trying not to bash him too much when they do address him. Compared to them, whose arguments are well thought out and clearly stemming from experience, Bob looks more like he's stumbling for an opinion, sculpting his points as he goes while employing less than masterful craftsmanship. This results in something that, when viewed from a very particular angle and if you know what are you looking for, is not entirely unlike a sensible commentary. Also, he yells a lot.
I understand you need someone to have different opinions or points of view or whatever, but honestly, Bob's not up to the task. He's way out his league.
What is MovieBob even doing in this column? Doesn't he review movies or something? He's the guy who saw it fit to spoil the ending to Inglorious Basterds in his goddamn review. You can tell the other two are either politely ignoring his more inane assertions, or trying not to bash him too much when they do address him. Compared to them, whose arguments are well thought out and clearly stemming from experience, Bob looks more like he's stumbling for an opinion, sculpting his points as he goes while employing less than masterful craftsmanship. This results in something that, when viewed from a very particular angle and if you know what are you looking for, is not entirely unlike a sensible commentary. Also, he yells a lot.
I understand you need someone to have different opinions or points of view or whatever, but honestly, Bob's not up to the task. He's way out his league.
'reads the first paragraph'
Duuuudes. Seriously. It wasn't that controllers are complex and beyond understanding, people still play Mario Kart with the controller turned sideways. People bought the Wii for different reasons. For instance, WiiFit. I know so many people, all females, who want to lose weight so they look like rakes but don't want to exercise. So they stop eating. Great, now they're thin, ill and tired. So they exercise, but their only concept of exercise meaning anything is going to the gym. But then everyone will see them. So they get WiiFit instead and do pushups.
A Wii isn't considered gaming, so it isn't considered nerdy, so it's considered socially acceptable to play it. People that play console games talk about how boring and wholesome the Wii games are. Only they don't say wholesome, grandparents do, so they give their grandkids this console because it's good for them.
Kay? Not controller complexity like so many people say, other reasons. Lots of reasons. Nothing to do with the controller. Well.. Nothing explicitly, fairly tangential relationship. You should know better.
Duuuudes. Seriously. It wasn't that controllers are complex and beyond understanding, people still play Mario Kart with the controller turned sideways. People bought the Wii for different reasons. For instance, WiiFit. I know so many people, all females, who want to lose weight so they look like rakes but don't want to exercise. So they stop eating. Great, now they're thin, ill and tired. So they exercise, but their only concept of exercise meaning anything is going to the gym. But then everyone will see them. So they get WiiFit instead and do pushups.
A Wii isn't considered gaming, so it isn't considered nerdy, so it's considered socially acceptable to play it. People that play console games talk about how boring and wholesome the Wii games are. Only they don't say wholesome, grandparents do, so they give their grandkids this console because it's good for them.
Kay? Not controller complexity like so many people say, other reasons. Lots of reasons. Nothing to do with the controller. Well.. Nothing explicitly, fairly tangential relationship. You should know better.
I would say you are hating on Bob not because of what he has said but because he doesn't necessarily specialise in gaming, though I would argue that he definitely knows his stuff -- he's probably the most knowledgable and culturally/socially aware of the three.Santa216 said:
OT:
Where the hell is our next installment guys!!!
Bob: If everyone put their backcatalog online they'd surely put all the junk in there as well.
And how can a true gaming novice know that the NES Mario's are pure gold and that some obsucre game with a more exciting title is actually crap that turns them off gaming forever?
Plus, you mention GTA1... I loved it back then in, uh 1996 or so, but it has nothing to do with GTA4 gameplay wise. It changed drastically after the last 2D one, so no use in 'learning' gaming from a game that has play no current game still uses, eh?
And how can a true gaming novice know that the NES Mario's are pure gold and that some obsucre game with a more exciting title is actually crap that turns them off gaming forever?
Plus, you mention GTA1... I loved it back then in, uh 1996 or so, but it has nothing to do with GTA4 gameplay wise. It changed drastically after the last 2D one, so no use in 'learning' gaming from a game that has play no current game still uses, eh?