Red Steel 2 Dev Says Motion Controls Must Become Standard
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
This touches on one of my biggest issues with motion controls, their relation to realism.
I love immersion like any gamer does and, I'm sorry, but waggles and wrist flicking isn't any more immersive than pressing a button. In fact, it's even worse in an immersion sense because it is so unnatural. Pressing a button is an instant direct mind to controller action, waggling a controller isn't.
So if a waggle or flick doesn't cut it, where do you go next? Well, you go towards more exaggerated but still unrealistic motions. Problem is, you're still in the land of the action not truly feeling real while at the same time widening the gap between instant mind to controller interface even further. In the end, it may not be a waggle but it's not really any better than one.
Well, what if we get to a point where the required movements are, in essence, real motions? First off, as many posters here are stating, people often play games to relax or to zone out and immerse themselves in an experience. Full motion control is actually totally opposite of what they want in games. Secondly, for those who don't mind full motion controls it quickly gets to the point of why bother. If I'm standing there kicking, punching and swinging a sword anyway, why am I doing it alone in my living room? I'll just go do martial arts or go for a run, or play a sport, etc. The problem is once you reach that level of immersion in terms of control, you're actually breaking the overall sense of immersion because it's really only making the fact you're just playing a game that much more obvious.
I love immersion like any gamer does and, I'm sorry, but waggles and wrist flicking isn't any more immersive than pressing a button. In fact, it's even worse in an immersion sense because it is so unnatural. Pressing a button is an instant direct mind to controller action, waggling a controller isn't.
So if a waggle or flick doesn't cut it, where do you go next? Well, you go towards more exaggerated but still unrealistic motions. Problem is, you're still in the land of the action not truly feeling real while at the same time widening the gap between instant mind to controller interface even further. In the end, it may not be a waggle but it's not really any better than one.
Well, what if we get to a point where the required movements are, in essence, real motions? First off, as many posters here are stating, people often play games to relax or to zone out and immerse themselves in an experience. Full motion control is actually totally opposite of what they want in games. Secondly, for those who don't mind full motion controls it quickly gets to the point of why bother. If I'm standing there kicking, punching and swinging a sword anyway, why am I doing it alone in my living room? I'll just go do martial arts or go for a run, or play a sport, etc. The problem is once you reach that level of immersion in terms of control, you're actually breaking the overall sense of immersion because it's really only making the fact you're just playing a game that much more obvious.
Oh look, another dev who blames everything around him than the game itself when it doesn't sell well. Maybe if they focused on making the game bigger and better and marketed it a little bit (I didn't even know it came out until I stumbled upon it in a store) it'd have performed better.
It's high time devs stopped blaming everyone else (the platforms, the publishers etc.) for their product's failings and recognise their own mistakes. It's not motion controls that are niche. It's devs like these who whine and ***** about motion controls being "niche" who at the end of the day blurt a half baked game and then say "OMG MOTION CONTROLOLOLZ" and actually believe that the target audience will bite that aren't helping the situation.
It's high time devs stopped blaming everyone else (the platforms, the publishers etc.) for their product's failings and recognise their own mistakes. It's not motion controls that are niche. It's devs like these who whine and ***** about motion controls being "niche" who at the end of the day blurt a half baked game and then say "OMG MOTION CONTROLOLOLZ" and actually believe that the target audience will bite that aren't helping the situation.
Interesting how he chose to view the results of his tests. People don't want to play with motion controls! There must be something wrong with the gamers!
This is just a guess, but it seems to me that maybe people don't like motion controls.
This is just a guess, but it seems to me that maybe people don't like motion controls.
Motion controls should never, and will never, become universal. Most people play games to relax and unwind, something that randomly flailing a piece of plastic with absolutely no physical feedback isn't the best solution for. Playing a fast paced FPS using motion controls? Impossible. Exhausting. A complex RTS? Impossible. Platformer? Broken furniture.
Motion controls should stay casual and gimmicky. That label doesn't necessarily make it bad, but there will be a significantly smaller consumer base interested, and I can see publishers and game studios' problems with that. However, the fact of the matter is that hardcore players will never use motion controls for playing their facorite hardcore titles like COD or Halo. Keep in mind that these players, including myself, play for hours on end.
Motion controls will never move past its child diseases unless publishers and game studios will acknowledge the fact that those products will never be interisting as a sole gaming input for hardcore players. When they get past that, they can start targeting the casual and family demographic, something that they should always have done, and a wave which the Wii has surfed past the Xbox and PS3 on in terms of units sold.
If (and I never believe it will) motion controls becomes the standard, I'll stop buying any new games or hardware, and continue playing my old games on my old consoles using a old-fashioned gamepad; like a grumpy old hermit, refusing to accept that the world has moved on.
Motion controls should stay casual and gimmicky. That label doesn't necessarily make it bad, but there will be a significantly smaller consumer base interested, and I can see publishers and game studios' problems with that. However, the fact of the matter is that hardcore players will never use motion controls for playing their facorite hardcore titles like COD or Halo. Keep in mind that these players, including myself, play for hours on end.
Motion controls will never move past its child diseases unless publishers and game studios will acknowledge the fact that those products will never be interisting as a sole gaming input for hardcore players. When they get past that, they can start targeting the casual and family demographic, something that they should always have done, and a wave which the Wii has surfed past the Xbox and PS3 on in terms of units sold.
If (and I never believe it will) motion controls becomes the standard, I'll stop buying any new games or hardware, and continue playing my old games on my old consoles using a old-fashioned gamepad; like a grumpy old hermit, refusing to accept that the world has moved on.
Why do motion controls have to become standard? I have nothing against motion controls, I certainly think they are a viable alternative. But rather than try and force motion controls onto every single type of game, they should focus on creating games that take advantage of the unique nature of motion controls and provide an experience that can only be made with them.