Isn't that a failing of a number of Wii/Wii U games? There are games that could work nicely with motion controls and some have them because apparently it's a requirement.Silvanus said:
The Wonderful 101 is officially coming to multiple platforms
- Thread starter Yoshi178
- Start date
Oh, I only meant to use "cursed" as an exaggeration to imply they weren't as successful as their talent, critical acclaim, fandom and absence of hatedom should afford them IMO. Guillermo had a few successes too, otherwise he wouldn't have been making the rounds in Hollywood and impressing Kojumbo. It's just the ratio of financial success/failure seems a weird injustice considering both don't appear to be obscure names either. Neither? Either? The grammar tissue broke again.CoCage said:
i didn't say it was impossible to enjoy Star Fox without motion controls but the point of Star Fox Zero was to use those controls for the game.Silvanus said:
whining about being "forced to used motion controls" is just as whingey and entitled as "forcing" someone to use a traditional control scheme.
That's such an odd elevation of the importance of a control scheme. Imagine saying that the "entire point" of Super Mario 64 was the button-layout.Yoshi178 said:
Uh-huh. Funny, this is far more aggressive and hostile than anything I wrote, so it's a little bizarre to say I'm whinging.
Clearly, a great deal more people find motion controls to be a turn-off than a traditional control scheme. This isn't "whining": it's just sensible business to point out that porting it with a traditional control scheme (as an option) is going to be attractive to a wider audience.
I tend to be one of the few people that actually defended the motion controls in Star Fox Zero due to my own personal enjoyment of it, as I adored the accuracy of firing my lasers in a different direction and being able to pilot my ship independently of my aim. However, I am also 100% in agreement that having no option to turn it off, and the game being built with the motion controls in mind, was also probably the worst idea and drastically dropped the game's appeal to a high degree.Silvanus said:
As much as Nintendo wanted to make it a thing, the second screen really wasn't necessary in most situations and could easily be adjusted for with a mini-screen view on the corner of the screen for a supposed Switch port for situations where it was necessary like the Gyro Wing. Otherwise I never needed to look at the Wii U tablet. Just got used to how the gryo aiming felt and I was good to go 9/10 times.
There's a difference with that though. I very rarely see anyone calling for motion control options besides maybe gryo aiming. And few, if anyone, is saying "Boy howdy I wish I could flail my arms around to control this game" unless it's a VR title. A traditional control scheme is just a given for any game. When the only control option is motion controls (like the classic Wii waggle for example), then it's more often than not for novelty's sake and doesn't really improve the game. I personally like the gyro aim of Star Fox Zero. But, I can see the game functioning just fine without it. "That's the point" is not a solid argument when the "point" doesn't really benefit the experience in a way that makes it clear it's 100% necessary.Yoshi178 said:
Calling someone entitled for expecting a control scheme that basically everyone should come to expect by now is a little off
Yahtzee's Extra Punctuation [https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/extra-punctuation/7794-On-Kinect-and-PlayStation-Move] perfectly reasons why motion controls are objectively worse than standard controls. Controls (or anything) should improve, not get worse.
if people don't want to use motion controls. then fine don't buy the game and vote with your wallet.
saying you're "forced" to use the motion controls is entitled as fuck. no ones forcing you to do anything, and the whole arguement that the traditional goal scheme is going to attract a wider audience is stupid.
Did touch screens have a large audience before the Nintendo DS came out? hell no.
companies are allowed to experiment and try new things but complaining that they're "forcing" you to try those new things is pretty whiney.
saying you're "forced" to use the motion controls is entitled as fuck. no ones forcing you to do anything, and the whole arguement that the traditional goal scheme is going to attract a wider audience is stupid.
Did touch screens have a large audience before the Nintendo DS came out? hell no.
companies are allowed to experiment and try new things but complaining that they're "forcing" you to try those new things is pretty whiney.
If controls are "the entire point" of a game, the game can't be that good.
Pretty sure that's the definition of a gimmick too: something that exists to bring attention to itself rather than be of practical use.
Pretty sure that's the definition of a gimmick too: something that exists to bring attention to itself rather than be of practical use.
Said it way better than I could in a much smaller post. And yet I'm supposed to believe we're "entitled" for thinking this. Alrighty, neato burritoJohnny Novgorod said:
Avnger said:
And then says that every thread he enters devolves into users 'ganging up' on him...Johnny Novgorod said:
I imagine a lot of people wanted to love Star Fox Zero, but because of the controls it became inaccessible to some people and unplayable to others. Expressing that disappointment isn't "entitled whining and whinging," it's having wanted something different that would let them play the game and have fun. "That's the point of the game" is not good justification for a gimmick control scheme that wasn't optional that ultimately narrowed its appeal to other players who simply can't make it work. There's a difference between being entitled and expressing disappointment
you guys say "gimmick" control scheme like it's a bad thing. why exactly are "gimmicks" so bad?Elvis Starburst said:
if gimmick's were bad then why would other titles with "gimmick" based control schemes like Splatoon do so well in sales?
hell Splatoon is now one Nintendo's most advertised mascot franchise's and top selling Switch games and Gyro controls in shooting games are now quickly becoming the standard in console shooters with fans constantly asking developers to include Gyro controls in their games such as DOOM 2016 and Overwatch when they were both ported to Switch
It seems like some people like the gyro controls more than normal controls meaning those controls are BETTER and thus not a gimmick. Plus, you don't have to use those controls if you don't want to.Yoshi178 said:
Honestly, I'm of the opinion that games don't need a conventional control scheme if they don't want to have one, and games aren't obligated to be accessible to everyone (in terms of mechanics, anyway; options for the colorblind and for those who have dyslexia and stuff are always nice to see). One thing I appreciate about Ninty is they're willing to put money into alternative ideas, unlike the vast majority of a) the money in the games industry who desperately scrabble to maintain the status quo unless somebody prefaces an idea with "monetize", and b) the indies who have the willingness but not the money for hardware-based innovation.Elvis Starburst said:
People like to say that game controllers are a solved problem. But there's plenty of industries outside of games where fundamentals were considered a "solved problem" until somebody managed to popularize a radical innovation. Actually, I just read an article the other day that somebody's figured out a new way of solving quadratic equations that's significantly simpler than the factoring that's taught in high school algebra today, and is trying to get school curriculums to incorporate it. That kind of stuff doesn't get found without people looking for it... even if there's a lot of failure on the way.
I have no idea if the gyro controls for Zero are crap or not, or if they accomplish their goal at all. I do reject the common assertions that there's no point or it's wrong to attempt new forms of input in games, or that games must necessarily chase a common market. One can debate the merits of an individual game's or developer's approach in these matters ("Nintendo would be a better developer if they dumped their hardware experiments and published their games across common platforms to earn more money"), but that's rarely the argument I see made, including in this thread.
that's not what gimmick means, like...at all.Phoenixmgs said:
literally the first definition of the word "gimmick" that comes up when you search it on Google is:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gim...1.69i57j0l7.5166j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
the motion controls in games like Star Fox Zero or even Wii Sports are just as much of a gimmick as it was when the gimmick was being able walk around in 3D worlds with the first analogue stick in Super Mario 64 on the Nintendo 64. they're both control schemes designed to attract attention.
"Gimmick" has nothing to do with how good or bad something is.