The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
"Maybe the whole concept of motion control is flawed?"
DodgeBlan
PSN: dodgeblanRegistered User regular
PSN: dodgeblanRegistered User regular
So I was reading some stuff by Yahtzee and I came across this quote. Let us talk about it.
Foreword: Let's try to keep this civil. everyone is doing it now, so this isn't really about Nintendo at all. This is about the concept and reality of motion control. Also keep in mind I'm talking about motion controls. Pointing at your screen is not really a motion.
Control: It's a huge part of the video game. Think back to all the games you have loved. It's fairly safe to say they tried to make the shooting of dudes, the commanding of dudes, the throwing of things, the running around, the stabbing, the jumping and the rolling as easy as possible. But in real life, none of those things are easy. Firing a gun accurately is hard. Throwing a ball accurately is hard. Leaping across a chasm is hard. In theory, motion controls move us ever so slightly closer towards an accurate representation of these things.
I want to use the example of Wii Sports bowling, because I feel that it is one of the most successful examples of motion control. When you are playing a bowling video game, do you want to feel like you are actually bowling? or do you want precision control that lets you bowl really well? Naturally the closer you get to actual bowling the less precision you have as controlling a bowl with buttons is always going to be easier than using your gross motor skills.
The promise of motion control is greater immersion because hey- I'm actually doing what my character is doing. I did get this feel a couple of times in Metroid Prime 3 when pulling fuel rods and turning levers. But those were just little distractions. Generally the meat of the game involves motions that are too difficult for my non-space marine reflexes.
So is the reality of motion control just highlighting the distance between our living room and the game world?
Foreword: Let's try to keep this civil. everyone is doing it now, so this isn't really about Nintendo at all. This is about the concept and reality of motion control. Also keep in mind I'm talking about motion controls. Pointing at your screen is not really a motion.
Control: It's a huge part of the video game. Think back to all the games you have loved. It's fairly safe to say they tried to make the shooting of dudes, the commanding of dudes, the throwing of things, the running around, the stabbing, the jumping and the rolling as easy as possible. But in real life, none of those things are easy. Firing a gun accurately is hard. Throwing a ball accurately is hard. Leaping across a chasm is hard. In theory, motion controls move us ever so slightly closer towards an accurate representation of these things.
I want to use the example of Wii Sports bowling, because I feel that it is one of the most successful examples of motion control. When you are playing a bowling video game, do you want to feel like you are actually bowling? or do you want precision control that lets you bowl really well? Naturally the closer you get to actual bowling the less precision you have as controlling a bowl with buttons is always going to be easier than using your gross motor skills.
The promise of motion control is greater immersion because hey- I'm actually doing what my character is doing. I did get this feel a couple of times in Metroid Prime 3 when pulling fuel rods and turning levers. But those were just little distractions. Generally the meat of the game involves motions that are too difficult for my non-space marine reflexes.
So is the reality of motion control just highlighting the distance between our living room and the game world?
DodgeBlan on
0
Posts
I'll bite.
For me, there are really three main "sellers" of motion control: immersion, novelty, and precision.
The one that excites me most is precision: where the addition of motion control allows you to do something more easily and more precisely than without it. This is where most opportunities are missed, because it looks like developers tend to focus on novelty and immersion. A couple examples come to mind: tilting the board in Mercury Meltdown Revolution was much more effective, at least for me, than trying to use a spring-loaded analog stick to accomplish the same task. Another tangential example would be the use of body tracking to control a character's lean or head twist, like Polyphony Digital is supposed to be doing with GT5 and the EyeToy. This last one is actually an interesting example, because my understanding is that leaning your head (since the EyeToy likely can't pick up a simple head twist as easily) will result in the virtual driver twisting his neck. Do I care that the motion is not mapped to the result 1:1? No, because now I don't have to try to push buttons to adjust my view while I'm already pushing buttons to steer, accelerate, brake and shift gears.
Novelty: The basic joy and fun of using motion controls. This is the hardest area to quantify - it can be difficult to reason about why one thing is fun and another is not. Note that novelty doesn't have to wear off in a few minutes, but it will likely wear off over some amount of time. The novelty of Wii Bowling took a while to wear off because it was implemented fairly well; same for Excite Truck. The novelties of wagggling to swing Link's sword or tornado-spin Mario wore off in about three minutes. There is a lot of cross-over with immersion since developers usually go for both at the same time.
Immersion: The factor I care the least about, because there's just no way that a Wii Remote or a Playstation Move controller is going to "immerse" me in a space-marine fantasy or a swords-and-sorcery duel. Developers shoot for immersion with things like your example of unlocking doors in MP3. For me, immersion is only good if it's kind of a side effect, and if the controls score high in the other two categories. Wii Bowling, for example: the novelty didn't wear off in just a few minutes, and it was precise enough and allowed me to control the game in a way I really couldn't without it, so it's icing on the cake that I'm making realistic-looking bowling motions too. The locks in MP3 failed in both other categories: the control was finnicky and sometimes didn't work right, and the novelty wore off after the first door because it's not interesting and it's just not that important of an action in the game world. It worked in Mercury Meltdown Revolution, even though the idea was about as simple as you could get with motion control, because the precision and fun were there - it just so happened that you were actually tilting the game board along with the controller, too. The head tilt in GT5? Maybe it's not immersive because there's not a realistic mapping from the motion you make to it's in-game translation, but I don't care.
The "promise" of motion control for me is greater precision, the ability to do things I could do or that would be very difficult to do with a regular controller, and the simple novelty and joy of translation motion to in-game action. Immersion is a far distant third place, and doesn't matter without the precision and the fun.
I know plenty of non-traditional gamers that refuse to play 360 and PS3 because of the dual analog controls. They just don't work for them. However, the Wii's motion control opens that world up to them because it's not just button mashing, which makes it more comfortable to the user.
As to the motion control issue, that's where I think it should apply. Making motion control games overly complicated defeats the purpose of the control system in the first place.
I also think this applies to rhythm games as well, and other games that don't use traditional joysticks.
but aside from some very specific motions (tilting your head or applying spin to an object) motion controls do not offer more precision. Buttons and joysticks (and mouses and touchscreens) are by nature more precise.
https://medium.com/@alascii
Same thing with the DS. I feel the DS really took off and started having amazing games when developers stopped trying to do every single thing on the second screen or putting stupid gimmicks that used it and instead just stuck to conventional controls with the touchscreen used for things that actually utilized it well.
i can't think of a single game i would like to play on a motion controller. a standard controller or a keyboard and mouse is always superior.
The same thing will happen with Natal and PSWaggle. We'll see some cool killer apps that will sell it early on and then developers will get lazy.
The best part of Wii controls for me has always been the IR pointer, which really isn't motion control at all. The pointer does make for some original, precision controlled games this generation.
Motion control is fundamentally different to a touchscreen. Hell, motion control is fundamentally different to everything we've tried so far. The touchscreen is in no way a paradigm shift, it's just a variation of the pointing and clicking we've been doing for yeaaaaaaars. The point of my post is that the way that games have evolved (a focus on precision and abstraction allowing a character to do the fantastical) is kind of diametrically opposed to motion control.
https://medium.com/@alascii
I will always want a controller for 90% of my games but motion controls can be a fun diversion.
Yea. If you exclude every sports game that could, theoretically, make good use of motion control there isn't very much left that would lend itself well. Strategy games? Keyboard and mouse is superior. RPGs? Have either really basic controls via menus or require micromanagement that can be better done via mouse/keyboard. Shooters? Motion control as it exists on the Wii right now feels, at least to me, too wonky to allow for decent aiming. A normal controller does a better job and of course mouse aim beats both.
Another issue, at least for me, is the huge amount of space you need to use motion controls. You're pretty much forced to be a certain distance from the TV to use them and after seeing the NATAL presentation this will get even worse. I simply do not have the space in my living room to have two people spazz out like crazy.
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
This stigma bothers me. There's not a single motion control game that requires you to do more than flick your wrist slightly or rasie your arm and move it in a circle. If that bothers you then yes your lazy. If you think you have to spaz out to play mario kart or something then you watch to much TV.
I don't mind Motion control. It's taking longer to find it's groove.
Natal obviously isn't gonna work out it's clearly lacking precision .
PSWii is blantant plagarism but it's Sony so it'll be forgotten in like a year just like Sixaxis which is a pity because stupid plastic ball aside they ripped off the right company( again) and it looks like a winner.
Nintendo needs to make Motion plus mandatory. Pack it in with more games or something. Otherwise developers won't use it and frankly I think it's something that motion control need to move forward as a legitimate control option
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
The only Wii games to make it work are those that have gone for a combination of the two (FPSs with pointer controls, Silent Hill: SM, Madworld, No More Heroes, Mario Galaxy)
well, actually, you're kinda making my argument for me.
if the motion we are talking about is just flicking a wrist, raising an arm or moving it in a circle, then why even have it? substituting a flick of the wrist or other minor motions for a button press makes no sense to me.
alternatively, if advanced motion control (wii balance board shit) requires me to stand up and do a bunch of shit, then i'd rather not have it. im a gamer not a skateboarder.
and im definitely lazy. no argument from me there.
This, basically. Motion control can be cool/interesting/whatever when it's well done, but sometimes I just want to veg out in my chair with my feet up and a controller. And by sometimes I mean most times.
This is pretty much my thought on the subject right here
Any game that had "good" motion control - Super Mario Galaxy, No More Heroes, whatever - the whole time I was just thinking to myself how much I would enjoy this on a Dual Shock or 360 controller or whatever, because I certainly wasn't enjoying it with the motion control
The only games where I've seen it feel necessary - basically the Wii Sports games - are so mind-bogglingly simple that I wouldn't be playing them on a standard controller. Which essentially means that at that point, they are being played for the gimmick of motion control; but since that's not a gimmick I dig, I just have to put it down and walk away.
one example would be a gun controller that has recoil and requires actual reloading and cocking. different guns in the game would have more or less recoil, more or less ammo, etc. this would be meaningful because now you would want to choose your weapon in game based on how it would change your real world gameplay.
at the moment, i can't think of any other cool peripheral but im sure someone can.
Ah, yes, feel I should be clear on this
My point of view extends to both motion control and pointer control
yeah, i know. but i think it probably would benefit from being motion control, as opposed to pretty much everything else, which imho, doesnt.
I guess I'm just not very excited about motion control, then! :P
As much as I like the Wii's setup, I've gotta concede that sometimes it just feels wrong. Wrong enough Nintendo did the classic controller. I like having a controller that uses both hands. There's a massive history of games that just feel floatier on the Wiimote/Nunchuck setup, in a really awkward way.
And yet we seem quite intent on akimbo motion control. Something I don't think is for everyone, and simply won't translate to a lot of tried and true gameplay modes.
It really makes me unsure of where we're headed. Motionplay is just starting to get serious, and I dig it, but there's too strong a case to still have a single controller built for two hands.
Microsoft might have the right idea after all. Or at least the first step towards it.
So basically there are two types of Wii games. The first are traditional games that use motion controls as a sort of flavour enhancement (No More Heroes, Super Mario Sunshine and Metroid Prime 3). The motion controls here are generally not fundamental to the game and serve only to spice things up a bit. Reactions to the motion controls in these games vary from "Goddamnit just give me a button" too "woo motion controls!"
Then there are the other type of games, the ones that can only exist with motion controls. I don't know if there are any more of these than the Wii Sports games? Now most people like these games and agree that they are incredibly well made and clever, but the ain't never gonna possess you like Alpha Centurai or Ocarina of Time.
The question is, can we either get to the point where synergy between traditional control and motion control creates something amazing? Or some sort of completely new game where the motion controls create an entirely new genre?
https://medium.com/@alascii
Well yeah, that would be an alarming fact if it was true.
But one of the things companies (EG: Nintendo) learned early on is that people don't want 1:1. 1:1 -SUCKS-. The nuances of golf, for example, or slashing through things. Without fully recreating weight, and resistance, and all that fun stuff.. well, bad shit happens.
So the trick, therefore, is to make the player THINK they have perfect control, even when the game is recalculating and adjusting and all that fun stuff. It's essentially a fly-by-wire system. And it goes without saying that most companies SUCK at it. Once that gets fixed, things will be better.. but it is a ways off.
Traditional controls are good
Motion controls are good
Using motion control without reason is not good
https://medium.com/@alascii
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Playing golf or baseball just on normal controllers just seems lame now. Even being able to lob a football with a gesture is going to open up a ton of new gameplay options. Just having the ability in the controller to know 'how hard did he toss that' without my having to pick a spot on an analog stick is a really big deal, IMO.
To me, motion controls open up possibilities that wouldn't have been considered before. Now with motion plus, the idea of having a "realistic" sword-fighting game or lightsaber game is possible. However, the developers really have to think through using motion controls and the best way to use them. The slashing in Zelda Twilight Princess to attack was not a good use of motion controls and using a button would have been better. Same with jumping in de Blob. But that's not to say they're useless or "just a fun diversion".
And as others have pointed out, I think the pointer controls are actually a much more promising innovation than the motion controls so far. Why developers haven't taken better advantage of it is beyond me.
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
That's a pretty bold statement considering we still haven't seen true 1:1 motion control yet. As it is now, motion controls are best used as a gimmick or suppliment for standard controls, like the touchscreen for the DS. Maybe in the future when the technology improves, motion controllers will be precise enough to replace standard controls for certain stuff like fps and light gun games.
And even if it were true, the Natal 360 refresh is rumored to have a much chunkier CPU in it than the original 360 anyway. It's all rumor at this point, but I've heard it will have an extra core and a higher clock rate.
People do realize at this point that Natal is not just motion controls, right? It's going to be a 360 refresh, sort of like the Wii HD for the 360.
A few games then tried to have you "explore" by not telling you how the controller worked and let you find out for yourself how to open doors or point your sword, which, in general, has sucked so far. However, I think that intuition w/ the controller really failed as a game concept because of how poorly certain types of motions are recognized. Does anyone here remember Elebits? You had to interact with objects to get these little dudes out of them (break a lamp, pour out a jug, turn a wheel), with no prompting from the game as to what type of motion was required to perform the action. It was cool when it worked, but frequently frustrating when you couldn't get the game to say "yes! that's the random motion I wanted" , whereas with a regular controller you could go on the internet and find a guide that says "push X-Square-R2".
So then you're left w/ games like Sports Resort or Mario Party, where every single game has a review of how the controller works and a practice round before it starts. That really breaks immersion, there is no precision, and it seems unrewarding (for someone who is used to precision gaming). Edit: In other words, there's no learning curve b/c you can't obtain mastery over the controller.
3clipse: The key to any successful marriage is a good mid-game transition.
I feel like for me this is on the right track. Some sort of game where the motion-sensing device represents a variety of objects that allow you to interact with your environment in non traditional ways.
https://medium.com/@alascii
If I swing a katana, and I am even a couple millimeters or degrees off true, then not only will I fail to cut jack or shot, but also the force of the blunt impact will reverberated into my wrists and hurt like Hell. Now while that physical sensation will not be created by a 1:1 scheme, true 1:1 does require that precision, yes? Now imagine a few hundred slashes per hour of gameplay, and my point becomes clearer. People play games because it makes them feel like they are doing something that they may not truly ne capable of. In other words, motion controls need some degree of "auto-aim."
This. RE5 for me was an exercise in frustration after playing the glorious Wii Edition. I believe Nintendo is the only company who has gotten a good grasp on what works when it comes to motion control.
However, there's a lot of cases where motion controls can be useful, especially in the realm of pointing at stuff (aiming projectiles, highlighting objects of interest, moving a token from point A to point
I'm "kupiyupaekio" on Discord.
https://medium.com/@alascii