Why are motion controls considered casual ?

[Oilerfan92]

Over the last little while, me and my cousins (who are 8 in case thats relevant in any way) have been talking about motion controls, mainly the Kinect (as good as a conversation as a 18 year old and 2 8 year olds can have) and we talked about some of the games that are coming out (mainly the Star Wars game) and the ideas that it could potentially have (most were pants on head stupid, but some wernt that bad, we were just kinda joking around though).

The thing is, as we were talking about swinging our arms around in crazy, yet somewhat organized method, cutting down stormtroopers or who ever, or whatever, that i realized that that kinda sounded like fun. Granted, im not a real hard-ass, i enjoy being silly and doing stupid stuff. But at the same time im not a hardcore outgoing person. For whatever reason, some of what we talked about actually seemed like it be fun.

Now, my point. I go on a lot of discussions where the Kinect, or just non-controler/motion control comes up, and it seems like a lot of people think that motion control in general is casual and stupid, and that they need a controler in their hand to "seriously game". and i wonder, why DO we play games anymore ? Do we play them to have fun, or do we play them to pretend that whatever we do in the virtual world has any value what so ever ?

Im not trying to turn this into a "gaming is going downhill" or "serious gamers are nerd virgins who jerk off to Samaus Aran" crap. I consider myself a rather serious gamer, I play more and know more than the average person, but the bigger part of my gaming is i enjoy it, even though i know it has no real real world value (my in game accomplishments specifically). But after thinking about it, I realize that being able to get up and do something has the POTENTIAL to be so much more fun than sitting on the couch pushing buttons.

My point summarised: Why is motion controlling so completely dissmissed ? Even if the Kinect bombs, eventually, someone will get it right. And when that does, how will it be viewed ?

 

[Oilerfan92]

On a similar note. I fully realize that the Kinect could be terrible.I also fully realize that me and my cousins ideas could and probably are much more advanced than what will happen with the Kinect.

All im saying is that, games are ment to be fun, theyre supposed to entertain us, and to be like our favorite show or whatever brings you joy, but almost fully in your control. Yet sometimes it seems like gamers want it to be a world they can nit-pick problems and act like their acomplishments in it are of value.

I think, that even if there are problems with it starting out, and if there are ones that just naturaly occur with it for a while, motion gaming looks like, if done right, could be more fun than sitting down pushing buttons.

 

[Wintermute_]

Considering all we have to work from to form opinions on motion control was Nintendo and there Wii waggle games, its easy to understand why motion control is seen as casual:
Wii is the poster child of motion control, and Wii is whoring itself as a casual gamer system, for families and diaper toting childrens and there grandmas.

Plus, what game has come out yet that relies singularly on motion control,and no other control function? Controllers are practical, effective, and make sense. I push button, something I want to happen happens. In motion control, I have to fail about to make what would normally require a button press, and hope it actual happens instead of the system thinking my arm failing instead meant leap around like a spaz while your enemies skull fuck you.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Skimmed, sue me.

They're considered casual because they have little relevance to the game. You have fun because you're jumping around embarassing yourself in front of friends, waiting for them to do the same. They don't have fine responses or accurate readings, thus cannot be used for anything else.

Motion contriols are to traditional controls as the three legged race is to the 100m dash

 

[MoNKeyYy]

I think it's because even though gamers tend to be very old fashioned, very nostalgic. The ridiculous popularity of Classic games delivered over services like Xbox Live, Wii Ware, PSN and Steam is an excellent example of this. We cling to the past, treating old classics like Mortal Combat, Super Mario, Sega and System Shock to be the greatest games ever made. Becasue of this, we like to ignore innovation and new things because they couldn't possibly compare to the old ones. We don't want to accept motion controlls because obviously they couldn't possibly be as good as our good old controllers and keyboards.

Also games like Wii Sports, Kinectimals and Cooking Mama (Which is serious buisness, not a kiddie game at all, and overall the best game EVER MADE!!!!) don't jelp at all.

 

[Oilerfan92]

Considering all we have to work from to form opinions on motion control was Nintendo and there Wii waggle games, its easy to understand why motion control is seen as casual:
Wii is the poster child of motion control, and Wii is whoring itself as a casual gamer system, for families and diaper toting childrens and there grandmas.

Plus, what game has come out yet that relies singularly on motion control,and no other control function? Controllers are practical, effective, and make sense. I push button, something I want to happen happens. In motion control, I have to fail about to make what would normally require a button press, and hope it actual happens instead of the system thinking my arm failing instead meant leap around like a spaz while your enemies skull fuck you.

I agree, im someone who hopes for/sees a potential for motion games. But what weve been given is terrible. The Wii truley is a game for the "casual gamer", and is gathering dust in my upstairs TV.

I dont blame people for atleast being sceptical. Even with the potential fun to be had, the launch lineup looks weak for the Kinect.

But, its like i always say "unless theyre (the developers) crazy luck and crazy good, its gonna suck the first little while. 3D (not 3D glasses 3D, the "move in any direction" 3D) SUCKED at first and for a while, even by then standards it was weak, but now look. Its been essentially perfected. and while not all games are 3D, nobodys complaining about the next Call of Duty having the ability to move sideways and forward and backwards.

Dont get me wrong though, ive got nothing against physically having something in my hand. Its very practical and that. Its just that im looking down the road here, and i see more freedom coming from controler-free at its potential, than controlers could offer.

 

[Deguasser]

Who though motion controls were a good idea?

Because I dislike them.

 

[Oilerfan92]

Edit

Double post, 2nd one was slightly better.

 

[Oilerfan92]

Im not saying that Kinect itself will be great or anything (I hope it is, because if it is thats a great place to start off). Im just speaking in general about motion/controler free gaming.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I think a lot of the issues with motion control stem from three things, first gaming being a largely passive activity, second motion controls being unable to offer a compelling replacement for standard controls, and third gaming being in a place where, for the most part, it just works like it is.

On the first point, one only has to read a couple of motion control response threads to see that many gamers enjoy the balance of active and passive activity that gaming currently exemplifies. They like the mental and dexterous challenges, but want to be able to enjoy games as they almost always have, by sitting on their sofa or desk chair and relaxing. Gaming is certainly more active a pursuit than the enjoyment of all other entertainment mediums but it's not that far removed in terms of how many prefer to enjoy it.

On the second, your Star Wars thoughts do sound cool but first off they run contrary to point one and secondly they, quite frankly, aren't anywhere near there yet. There have been no motion control games to this point that adequately demonstrate how motion control can improve games as a whole. Sure they work great for certain game activities, like golf and bowling, but don't offer anything nearing compelling for full game experiences. We're not talking full blown Matrix style virtual reality when we're talking motion control, in it's current state we're still talking basically wrist or body waggle. Even in the previously mentioned cases of golf and bowling, where motion controls do fairly closely approximate the real life experience it's easier for many to simply go do (or at least say) "just do it for real." Until motion control reaches a point where there are really compelling complete experiences that could not be done without motion control, and maybe one day we will reach that level, that play as well as standard games they are always going to be looked upon as a substandard form of gaming, which leads to point #3.

On the third point, games right now are still progressing in their current control form and, quite simply, they work amazingly well. As I see it, the traditional control style is near perfected and with new techniques involving blended animations and context sensitivity we're reaching a point where traditional controls are starting to do things even better than motion control perhaps ever could. Gamers have been using traditional control devices for decades and it really is at a point where the thought translates into the action seamlessly. Motion control will probably never be able to achieve this sense of "oneness" with the game because as soon as it gets close then the physical limitations of the gamer will break any sense of immersion and we'll be back at the point where we may as well be using wrist waggle again. You want to run up a wall, flip off, shoot one guy six times then slash his friend with your sword before landing into a full run before the next bad guy? Sweet.. but you can already do that with standard controls without breaking a sweat simply by, basically, just thinking about it. You can't do that with motion control unless you start inserting shorthand gestures and once you're doing that then you may as well ask yourself "what's the point?"

 

[T_ConX]

1) Ease of entry.
The Wiimote itself was born out of the realization that game controllers were getting too complex, something that was frightening potential new gamers away from buying into the hobby. Likewise, anything that seems to simplify the human/game relationship is though of 'dumbing it down'.

2) Lack of Refinement
Nintendo was smart enough to include actual buttons and a joystick with their Wii controllers, because sometimes you don't want the game to misinterpret your desired commands. How would Kinect avoid such occurrences? Most of us long-timers require the precision offered only by traditional hardware. I can enjoy the immersion of having to swing a WiiMote when I swing my sword in Zelda, or have to shake monsters off of my back in SH:SM, but for basics like moving, I NEED A GODDAMN JOYSTICK.

3) Types of games
It doesn't matter how hard Sony tries to convince me otherwise; The Fight: Lights Out looks like Wii Boxing, only with a coat of GRITTY REALISM so they can sell it to suburban kids who dream of being street thugs. Just like how Blur was nothing but a repainted Mario Kart!

You will never play a full-fledged RPG with Kinect, or an FPS, or even a platformer. I know attempts have been made, and are still being made, to bring genres like the FPS to Wii and PSMove, but every time I play Red Steel, or watch the previews for SOCOM 4, I can't help but think that while this is nice... I would REALLY prefer using a more traditional method of control.

As a result, the only games you'll be playing Kinect with are Dancing games, Virtual Pet games, Workout games, and the like. You know... nothing 'serious'...

 

[Adzma]

Skimmed, sue me.

They're considered casual because they have little relevance to the game. You have fun because you're jumping around embarassing yourself in front of friends, waiting for them to do the same. They don't have fine responses or accurate readings, thus cannot be used for anything else.

Took the words right out of my mouth my friend. I might consider motion controls relevant once we have VR games. For now, as far as I'm concerned, they're just gimmicks.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Why are they considered casual?

It is because the mainstream gamers think it is gimmicky and only for parties. That is how it is viewed in my hometown anyway. The Wii is appealing to all groups, not just the "professional" gamers. That is why most people who play video games think it is beneath them...

I don't agree with this but I don't like motion control for my own reason: I like controllers better. It is far more satisfying to hear the click of a button for me than it is to move in the right way. Time will tell if I encounter motion controls I like better.

 

[Something Amyss]

T_Con's first point is sort of what I'm getting at here. Number three sort of applies, but mostly one.

The fact is, these devices are designed as they are in part because controllers are considered daunting to the so-called casual gamer. Ease of entry is a huuuuuge part of the appeal to motion gaming, thus the people it appeals to are a huge part of it. And a huge part of that base is the casual gamer. That in and of itself makes it hard to shake the "casual" moniker.

I mean, Wii is the console my mom plays. And her friends play. And my aunt and grandmother play. I'm not saying "wii is bad" or "casual is bad." But it certainly aims at a more casual base, and that was Nintendo's intent. Same with the Wii. They courted women and the elderly, markets not normally tapped by the gaming market. They came up with ways to make exercise fun. They came up with cute games that sell. There are some dark titles, even a couple M rated games, but for the most part they're cute and/or friendly.

And a lot of them are kind of fun. Not my sort of thing, but let them go with it.

Kinect and Move don't have much value to me personally beyond novelty, though they may surprise me. Most gamers are used to a controller interface and will want to play their way. Success will largely depend on how much of the "casual" base they pull in and whether or not they can integrate the more "typical" user. But it does hinge on the casual, hence....

 

[pretentiousname01]

I would like to see a list of the hardcore centric games that use large amount of motion controls.

Then compare that list to the list of casual garbage that uses it to the same degree.

 

[The Code]

In the words of the great Ben Croshaw, motion controls are completely unimmersive unless there is some kind of force feedback. It's paraphrased, I'll admit, but the point stands.

Let's take a relatively well-known game for example, my choice being Mass Effect 2 for this example. During the planet mining 'mini-game' thing, the controller vibrates when you hit a pocket of a valuable resource, even vibrating in different ways depending on what resource you've found. If you've stumbled upon a massive pocket containing a metric shit-ton of multiple metals, then the controller will go bat shit crazy in your hands. If that little mini-game were wired for motion controls in a Kinect fashion (no physical controller), then the oddly satisfying epileptic seizure called a controller you'd normally be holding isn't there.

In Metal Gear Solid, when Dr. Naomi makes the nanobots give you a 'shiatsu massage', it's the rumble feature in the controller. If the game was done Kinect style, that bit wouldn't even exist. Psycho Mantis, on the other hand, would more than likely be an even bigger pain in the ass then with a regular controller. You know, reading the player's movements and all that crap. (And Konami staff, if you're reading this, For the love of the Gods, PLEASE don't do that to us!)

Not to mention that player to game reaction time will be horrible. Halo, if done Move/Wii Style, might use the actual melee motion to melee an enemy. (swinging the rifle butt at the enemy, if ya didn't know!)

Personally, I think Metroid Prime 3 did very well with Wii style motion controls. It was an FPS title that used the controls in a clever and interesting way, and I applaud Nintendo for pulling such a game out of its hat. I honestly think that the game wouldn't have been the same without it.

My point is that if applied correctly and with moderation, motion controls can be just as good, if not better and more fulfilling in certain situations, than the standard Thumb style.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Firstly, the Kinect will fail for games outside of dancing, the thing is perfect for dancing games. However, most games need at least some kind of button input, the Kinect is just not going to fly. The driving controls are stupid for steering alone; you need to hold something to steer or it's very tiring, holding you hands up in mid-air is stupid.

Secondly, right now, the motion control games ARE casual. This is due possibly to the limits of the technology. Think about playing a golf game or baseball game where you actually have to be able to swing properly to do well. That would be hardcore; if your golf swing or bat swing in real life sucks, you are going to suck at the game. I'm a good bowler and Wii bowling was fun at first but then I realized it's just too easy to roll a good ball over and over again. That's why motion control gaming is casual, the gameplay is easier to master because of the limits of technology or developers not requiring the player to be exact in their motions to do well.