Spector: Motion Control Risks "Throwing Away Our Entire History"

[TheRealCJ]

When I am playing an RPG for example, I do not really think the experience would be improved by waving a controller like a magical wand, or trying to swordfight. That's what all the numbers are supposed to be for.

and that's why I don't really play RPGs, if they put me and my actual skill in charge of things like that I'd be more interested


--

... and that is fine, and a very mainstream attitude. That is why they make various kinds of games. There are already plenty of action based games using swords and magic that do exactly that kind of thing for those with your attitude.

RPGS however are a differant genere, and would not really benefit from motion controls. On the other hand I suppose a motion controlled "God Of War" that made you swing the weapons or whatever would be fine for action fans.

I will however point out that your attitude might very well change given time. I liked action games a lot more when I was younger. But when you get older things change. You *DO* slow down, and my father who is older than me (and I'm 34) still games and simply can't do that kind of stuff (where I'm merely increasingly bad at it compared to what I used to be capable of, when I was a teenager my fingers were a LOT quicker).

Of course people slow down at differant rates, I'm sure there are 30+ year olds who agree with you. I personally don't care for the current state of today's so-called RPGs, but I also feel that demand will increase simply as today's twitchers who grew up with games lose the abillity to twitch, but still want to play games as more of a mental exercise.

I see RPGs and Strategy games as being close to each other, and bleding the two works with some frequency. I see the "Action RPG" format some people are aiming for as being a contridictory pipe dream fueled by the theoretical amount of money a game that could cater to both the mainstream and a large, stable, and long running niche market and be worshipped by both could bring in.

See, I don't know if someone will actually WANT to play a game like God of War with motion controls. Having owned and played a Wii for some time, it's fine for stupid little games like Bowling or Tennis (and even those are an excersie in frustation without Motion+). But those few games that ask you to actually pull off combo moves with remote are just hideous. Red Steel sucked, Call of Duty 3 was barely playable, Madworld was frustrating, the Conduit... well, the less said about that game the better.

Really, until the sensor on my Wii/Arc/Natal is a fully-surrounding 360 degree space, where every motion from every angle is registered, motion control gaming is going tp continue to be less immersive than traditional controllers.

 

[samsonguy920]

I think what he was trying to say was "motion control is not the future of gaming, motion control is merely a PART of the future of gaming".
Or to put it another way, the Wiimote is to the GameCube controller what the mouse is to the keyboard - a new interface device capable of doing new and exciting things, but not in any way a replacement.

That's what was said, and I agree.

 

[ultrachicken]

Finally someone who gets it.

You do realize that almost every gamer gets it, right?

OT: I don't want to be flailing my arms around like an idiot in front of my TV, I play games to unwind, not the opposite. I'm glad that someone in the industry realizes that.

 

[fletch_talon]

I can safely say that I don't even consider Wii Sports a "game". Therefore, playing Wii Sports with your parents is hardly "gaming together".

Care to explain what makes a game then?
Cuz right now this particular statement seems pretty damn ignorant since the only thing separating Wii Sports from other sports games is its control method.

other than the fact that every sports game except Wii Sports is more than just little mini-games? that you can actually have a season and trade in/out athletes at will?


saying Wii Sports is an actual sports game is like saying hopscotch is on par with football [EU/NA] and hockey.

For starters, the only difference I see between tennis in Wii Sports and other tennis games is cameos by real tennis players, tournaments and perhaps a stricter adherence to the rules.

But that's not really the point is it.

Basically you've attempted to change the subject and contradicted your previous statement in one post. If Wii Sports is a collection of mini-games then that would make it a game yes? Or at least a collection of games.

You'd have to be a fool to say Pong is not a game and there is a lot more to the tennis game in Wii Sports than Pong.

 

[shadow741]

I don't really like motion controls for the same reason he said. It's that who the hell really wants to get up and flail their limbs around like a moron instead of sitting down and relaxing. P.S. The pants around his dick has a spot bluer than the rest of his pants, I vote he pissed himself.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Pretty much the same thing I've been saying since the Wii was first announced. Motion control in and of itself is not bad, but it has no place being the control method for every single game. Standard control methods (controllers, kb/m, etc.) provide a level of precision and control that motion controls could never match. Motion controls provide a level of interaction that standard controls could never match. In an ideal world, neither would be going away but developers would make smart choices as to which style (or a combination) suited their game experience best.

 

[DancePuppets]

I'm not really a big fan of motion controls either, in a room full of people playing party games then they can add to the experience, but for when I'm gaming on my own or over the internet I just cannot see a major advantage. Hopefully these new motion controls won't completely replace old fashioned gamepads and games will be able to be played using whatever the gamer playing it feels most comfortable with.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

He's got something of a point. While the Wii is not a bad thing, the Xbox and Playstation rip-offs ARE a bad thing because of the motives behind their creation. Have Microsoft and Sony decided to add motion controls to consoles that WEREN'T specifically designed with motion control in mind because they have really great ideas for games with motion control? Fuck no! They're doing it because the Wii is kicking their asses and they think they can juice more money out of the gaming public by copying Nintendo!

The problem is that while the Wii has a lot of great games, it also has a lot of shit ones and the shit ones are largely shit because the motion control isn't implemented well.

I dunno... I always saw the Wii as having to buy a full console for what should have been a GameCube peripheral. MS and Sony are certainly proving the point by releasing motion control as a stand-alone addition after the fact. Nintendo proved the motion controller concept was popular, but it meant playing their cards first while their competition could take a look at what Nintendo had and engineer better controllers and grab a piece of the pie after it was baked.

A lot of Wii games have bad motion control because the Wiimote is a BAD MOTION CONTROLLER, it's only able to indicate its position when you're pointing it at the screen... otherwise all it has is the acceleration sensor, which the games themselves can't tell any different from pressing a button.

As for "throwing away our history", there's nothing wrong with giving everyone more options unless you assume the people you're giving them to are morons. How many console games don't get made (or get made and suck) for lack of a mouse-like controller bundled with the system? Motion conrol can "do" a mouse. I doubt gamepads are going anywhere, and a good designer will know when his project is going to play better on one or the other.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I dunno... I always saw the Wii as having to buy a full console for what should have been a GameCube peripheral.

That's probably because it is a gamecube peripheral.

It's just that internal testing proved that a gamecube was too slow to cope with interpreting the motion data.
Which explains why a Wii is basically a faster gamecube.

Meanwhile, Spector does have a point. But look at the games on the Wii; Nintendo understands this point as well as anyone.

After all, the motion control in a lot of their own games is very minimalistic. (zelda & mario limit it to non-specific controller shaking, and the use of the pointer, Smash Bros. Doesn't even do that, and was actually designed with the idea that people would use the classic and/or gamecube controllers to play it.)

Ask yourself why Wii games that allow the use of gamecube controllers even exist?
Or for that matter, why the 'classic' controller was made?

Surely the obvious point is because there are game designs where motion control isn't a great idea?
Problem is, I don't think 3rd party devs got the message...

And I suspect the PS3/360 systems won't improve the track record there.

Motion control can be great, but when it's thrown in just because a developer thinks it's nessesary, it tends to just turn into total crap.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

That's probably because it is a gamecube peripheral.

It's just that internal testing proved that a gamecube was too slow to cope with interpreting the motion data.
Which explains why a Wii is basically a faster gamecube.

It always struck me as a burn that Nintendo was selling a new console but didn't bother making it powerful enough to feel much different from the previous model. It had the controllers, and that was cool for the novelty, but they didn't build any staying power into the machine... now their customers will have to buy new hardware to match the experience that high-def consoles offer with their own with motion controllers.

Meanwhile, Spector does have a point. But look at the games on the Wii; Nintendo understands this point as well as anyone. ... Problem is, I don't think 3rd party devs got the message... And I suspect the PS3/360 systems won't improve the track record there.

Here's the thing: as a 3rd party, there's no point putting a non motion-control game on the Wii. They can make gamepad games look and play a lot better on PS360 for the same amount of effort. Once every platform has motion control we'll probably stop seeing so much "IT HAS TO HAVE MOTION CONTROL" shovelware on the Wii. Or, if it was up to me, we'd see nobody putting software on the Wii any more.

 

[CrystalShadow]

That's probably because it is a gamecube peripheral.

It's just that internal testing proved that a gamecube was too slow to cope with interpreting the motion data.
Which explains why a Wii is basically a faster gamecube.

It always struck me as a burn that Nintendo was selling a new console but didn't bother making it powerful enough to feel much different from the previous model. It had the controllers, and that was cool for the novelty, but they didn't build any staying power into the machine... now their customers will have to buy new hardware to match the experience that high-def consoles offer with their own with motion controllers.

Meanwhile, Spector does have a point. But look at the games on the Wii; Nintendo understands this point as well as anyone. ... Problem is, I don't think 3rd party devs got the message... And I suspect the PS3/360 systems won't improve the track record there.

Here's the thing: as a 3rd party, there's no point putting a non motion-control game on the Wii. They can make gamepad games look and play a lot better on PS360 for the same amount of effort. Once every platform has motion control we'll probably stop seeing so much "IT HAS TO HAVE MOTION CONTROL" shovelware on the Wii. Or, if it was up to me, we'd see nobody putting software on the Wii any more.

Yeah, I can see this might happen.

Personally, I didn't much see the point of high definition gaming for a long time...
But I just recently got a new PC (Ati 5770), and running games on 2 monitors with 4x antialiasing, and all the effects turned way up has made me realise 2 things:
1. HD graphics on old games is a mixed bag; It can look great, but it can also accentuate all the graphical flaws... (Meaning, I suspect, that running a wii game at HD resolutions would be counter-productive).
2. Properly designed games can look incredible, and seeing some tech demos in action revived feelings I haven't really had about games since 1996...

What can I really say about the Wii though that means anything; (Aside from the amusing fact that it uses only 18 watts while running... That's about 1/10th a 360's usage... And somehow I dont think a 360 is 10 times faster...)

Still, with everyone jumping on the motion control thing, I'm left wondering what route Nintendo will take...
Part of their reasoning for creating such an underpowered system was reducing game development costs, which makes me wonder if the much predicted 'Wii HD' idea will ever happen.

Meanwhile, I was just reminded of a side issue:
Spector mentions 30 years of history for traditional game controllers...
But that in itself is interesting, because consider what a controller from 1980 was like; THAT is approximately where we're at with our understanding of how to implement motion control properly...

In the end, I'd just like to see devs using the methods that work the best for a game.
Please, please stop tacking on random gimmicks just for the sake of it.
If you can think of something interesting to do with motion tech, go ahead, but don't just do it because you can...

 

[XT inc]

I personally think this motion thing has to evolve or die, I rarely touch my wii because it is so gimicky and I think the best bet is to mix gestures and use the controller at the same time, but actual controllers none of this weird wiimote nonsense.