Motion control discussion

I didn’t really want to clog up the existing Playstation Move games thread or the PS3 vs 360 thread with my further ranting on the subject of motion controls, so I’m creating a new thread here.

It was asked whether I had used the Wii Motion+ controls, and the answer is no.I’ve only played ‘standard wii’ motion controls, but that really isn’t the issue I’ve got with them. (Okay, the fact that the standard wii motion controls are jittery and awkward doesn’t help.) The trouble is that, as a general rule, the actions I take in the games I play don’t -have- clear physical analogues in reality. Nor do I -expect- them to. I’m not interested in trying to perform sword slashes to fight in Tales of Vesperia, nor am I even sure what sorts of actions I would take in most of the games I play. I -dread- the idea that we’re just going to get more “waggle the remote to jump” nonsense.

Yahtzee, of Zero Punctuation fame, wrote an article not too long ago explaining why he thinks motion control is a terrible idea. I tend to agree with him on this. The gist of the argument is this:

The ultimate goal of a gaming interface is to remove barriers between the player and the game - with the direct neural interface as the sci-fi goal. The existing controller does a fairly good job of this. All you ever need to do is twitch your thumbs a bit. The amount of physical motion and the degree of reflexes required to make it are relatively small. The controller minimizes the amount of physical motion required to get the signals from the brain to the game. Now pretend that all of a sudden instead of tapping a button, I need to wave my hand. All of a sudden, I am doing much more work in an effort to get the game to understand what I’m doing. And odds are, I’m not waving my hand to make the character wave his hand - I’m waving my hand to throw something, or cast a magic spell, or something similarly completely unrelated to what I’m actually doing. It is no more intuitive - because lets face it, 90% of actions in games correspond poorly to actions I can/should be taking in real life, and it takes just as long to understand “Okay, if I need to cast levitate, I wave my right hand” as it does to understand “If I need to cast levitate, I push Y”.

What’s more, we’ve actually made the action slower and enlarged the barrier between me thinking “Okay! Jump now!” and the character in the game actually jumping. Because no matter how lag free your motion control solution is, it takes me longer to jump than it does to push A. To me, Motion controls are a step backwards unless the idea to create a simulation of something I can already do. It’s great for fitness “games” and dancing “games”, but I’m putting games in quotes there for a reason. The “game” part of those comes from the rules built up around the activity - it’s essentially the same thing as having someone else there to say “Great! That’s 50 pushups! You’re really on a roll tonight, tiger! Now 50 jumping jacks and you’ll break your own record!” The -activity- isn’t a game, but you can build a game around it. For those of us who like…video games, as they have traditionally been defined, motion control doesn’t really seem to have a home. (Aside: I loathe driving games except for Crazy Taxi, so trying to sell me how awesome it is to tilt a controller to simulate steering is unlikely to sell me anything.)

I would disagree. To me, making my character throw something by twitching my left thumb in a particular way imposes a barrier between me and the game. It’s much less of a barrier if, to throw something, I make nearly the same kind of motion I would use myself to throw something.

Sure. And which will you be able to accomplish quicker with practice?

And more importantly, which is a greater barrier to say, using a smart bomb, casting fireball, or interfacing with a datacomm terminal? All of those are common elements in games of their types, but none of them have a useful physical analog.

Throwing is about as close as you’ll ever likely get to a real motion from motion control, and even then, you’ll have to learn how the game WANTS you to throw.

Disclaimer: I am currently working on a game that uses the Move, and I am also under NDA with Sony, so my remarks will necessarily be general in nature and I will refrain from any discussion of the specific capabilities of the different motion controllers.

There are two huge advantages to traditional game controllers: The buttons allow for very precise timing of control inputs – down to a few hundredths of a second – and the physical response of the buttons themselves provides very useful tactile feedback to the player. Motion control is necessarily sloppier – not because of any technical flaws in the various systems – but because it lacks precise triggering and immediate physical feedback.

When you press a button on a traditional controller, it’s obvious to the system that you want something to happen NOW. But it the control input comes from moving the controller, your intent is “smeared” across the duration of the gesture. This makes it hard to achieve the precising timing that so important in some games (fighting games for example).

Furthermore, motion-controlled games have to rely more heavily on visual feedback than traditional games. If I press a button to swing my sword on a traditional controller, I don’t have to wait to see my character actually swing my sword on the screen to know that my attempted control input succeeded. The fact that I feel the button click under my thumb tells me that my control input was received and mentally I can begin planning my next move. But with a gesture-based system, that immediate physical feedback isn’t there. I can’t be quite sure that my gesture was received until I see the results on the screen. And that visual feedback loop is many milliseconds longer.

For these two reasons, I don’t think motion controls will ever replace traditional controllers. There are just some types of gameplay challenges that you can’t pull off in a motion-only system.

At the same time, there’s a lot to be said for the kinetic thrill of mimicking a particular motion. In gameplay terms, there’s no reason you couldn’t play Guitar Hero, or Rock Band with a normal controller, but there’s something about standing there and actually holding a guitar that makes the experience more intense. The same holds true for motion controllers. Actually swinging the controller like a bat or a sword creates a physical connection to the fantasy of the game that you just can’t get from mashing buttons. Motion controllers won’t replace traditional controls, but they do offer all sorts of new ways to play.

Are there any motion controllers that don’t have any buttons at all? Just because you have motion sensing doesn’t mean that you have to use it for everything. But it makes a lot of sense to use it for throwing things, or swinging a sword or club, or aiming a gun, or a variety of other motions that are the essential core of the game types they appear in.

Casting magic is a perfect use for motion controls - at least in systems where the caster actually moves their hands.

That was the best thing about the Nintendo DS version of Lego Harry Potter - it had you use the Stylus as your ‘wand’ when casting magic, using different gestures for different spells. I have no idea what they did with the Wii version, if there is one, but if they didn’t use the wiimote as a wand the same way, I’d be really disappointed.

Motion controls are great for some types of games and useless for others. They work when the controller action mimics the real-life movement.

The best example I have of good motion control is table tennis in Wii Sports Resort. The actions feel natural, making it easy to time swings, and provides control of spin. The lag the controller introduces isn’t a problem in this case, as the shot can be anticipated.

Where it doesn’t work is where a motion control is shoehorned in to something inappropriate, and it becomes a distraction. It’s pretty useless for FPS and platform games.

I wish motion controls would just go away. I realize that I am in a minority and I’ve learned to deal with that. I wouldn’t even be annoyed by it - I have no problem with people playing games in whatever form they want, and it’s not like they’re forcing me to play them that way - except that it has pretty obviously affected the universe of non-motion-controlled games for the negative (biggest obvious example: the Zelda series, which is basically dead to me at this point).

I am entirely on board with the OP: it is a complete breaking of immersion for me to be waving my arms around instead of just pressing a button. For someone in my generation that has essentially grown up with a controller in my hands, the “normal” interface is completely integrated into the gaming experience.

Now, get off my lawn so I can go play Link to the Past for the 83rd time!

This works fine (not “perfect” - I would argue that you’re not really ADDING anything to the gameplay here. There’s generally no direct physical analogue going on, and it’s -not- actually easier to remember that “Okay, levitate is an upwards sweep while fireball is a slashing motion” than it is to remember “Levitate is right trigger, fireball is A”) as long as there’s not a great element of timing involved. If you’re playing a puzzle based game where the idea is mostly to move objects around via magic (because wizards don’t have opposable thumbs, so everything must be move via magic) then great. If you’re playing a game in which rapid reactions and quick precision is required, not so much.

All I know is that motion controls won’t be integrated into FPS games and games that I tend to like any time soon. If they want to use the motion controls to peruse the menus, I’m cool with that. During the game? I think not.

Kinect has no physical object you hold at all. So yes. (Note: Sony actually made fun of them for this in one of their ads.)

Tell this to the game designers. Also, what do you do when virtually NO actions in the game have appropriate analogues? (Any platforming game, shooting game, or RPG game for example).

Motion controls generally irritate me. They’re fine for things like Wii resort where you’re just boxing / shooting arrows / swinging swords for a short time while your friends are over (and drinking…). But when I play a game like Metroid, I’m actually planning on playing for a significant period of time. This still wouldn’t be that bad if the motion controls were thoughtfully applied to things like shooting and throwing grenades or something. But there shouldn’t be a motion for every single thing. I don’t want to have to pull a something out, rotated it clockwise, and push it forward EVERY SINGLE TIME I go through door. It’s not realistic. No door has ever involved that much effort for a simple hallway entrance. Things like that are constant inserted into games in order to make more use of the motion controls.

On top of that, I don’t find the wii to be particularly accurate. My motions rarely translated precisely to the game. For example, in golf, I may go through the entire swinging motion of the club, but the computer may think I pulled back my swing instead of followed through with it. The speed and direction of the swing (toward the camera) make it difficult for the camera to properly detect the motion.That may be better in the ps3 or 360 versions of the input, but I find it consistently even with the Wii Motion Plus thing.

All things considered, I still think that a standard dual analog stick controller is a better form of input for just about everything on the console.

Platformers you just use a different control scheme, but shooting games, the essential action is aiming, right? That’s a lot easier with something like a wiimote than with directional pads. And for RPGs, you’d use it like a mouse (you know, the thing that every RPG wishes it had?).

No, not FPS games (Also: I find point devices terrible for aiming, because aiming is traditionally also associated with turning, which creates some fairly serious problems when you’re already pointing at the edge of the screen). Shooters. Scrolling games that involve shooting.

And uh…why on EARTH would I want to play a console RPG with a mouse? Fine fine, for those of you who believe RPG=Mass Effect, then obviously it was designed for a pointing device, but that’s not remotely the sort of experience I am thinking of. And seriously. Why would I want to hold my hand out towards the screen and raise it up and down to pick something off a menu when I can just push the D-pad or analogue stick up and down? One is way more work than the other and offers no benefits.

Yes, the D-pad is way more work. You know those little nipple-mouse things you see in the middle of the keyboard on some laptops? Ever notice that absolutely nobody uses one of them when they have the option of using a real mouse instead? That’s because, even though you have to move your whole hand for a mouse instead of just one finger, it’s a lot easier to use it to control a pointer.

The problem with taking the Wii as a measure of whether or not shooting controls can work with a pointing device is that your complaints so far seem purely related to the limitations of the Wii pointer, which requires that the pointer’s camera sees the sensor bars leds to work. The range that supports isn’t great, and that’s what limits sensing when to turn near the edge of the screen.

With Motion+ you could point your controller at the wall behind you and it would still read correctly, thanks to its increased rotational input, and Move is even more accurate, with pretty much zero additional lag over the dualshock to boot (although if a game uses an on-screen cursor, they may smooth movement out a bit to prevent your physical trembling from making the cursor shake, but compared to the lagginess of moving your aim with a dualshock, it’s still a marked improvement). I also expect that the best input for FPS games will probably include a combination of being able to point freely on the screen and hold a button to keep the aim in the centre and move your viewpoint instead. Both of these styles of shooting are used in reality (e.g. shoot with just moving your arm, and shoot with moving both your head and your arm), and by not pressing the button immediately, you can bring your viewpoint to your aim instantly.

The thing is, great developers have done a great job at working with the limitations imposed upon them by game inputs. Back when a game controller was often little more than an analog knob you could turn, you had games like Pong, which were perfectly designed for just that. Then when you have controls that have buttons for up, left, right and down, developers designed games like Pacman. When buttons were added to these directional controllers, these could be used for jumps or shooting in addition to moving around. When the first computers with keyboards got games, you had games like text adventures that allowed you to type in text or use the keyboard for shortcuts for actions, etc… When computers got mice, pointing and clicking was added to the mix leading to all sorts of different gameplay revolving around pointing and clicking (most obvious example being a point and click adventure), but also more exotic examples like Virus (if anyone even remembers that, it was a pretty wild departure in terms of controls), Populous (I still remember pretty much exactly how and when I first saw that game at an Atari ST club and how impressed and excited I was) and the whole range of RTS games following it, and many many others.

Move forward to analog joysticks that you like so much. One of the very first analog sticks was actually created in 1982 by Atari, but the tech wasn’t reliable enough. Sony probably had the first dual analog one in 1996 for PC (supported by games like Descent), in the same year that Nintendo premiered its first analog thumbstick for the Nintendo 64 controller. A year later Sony introduced the first Dual Analog controller for the Playstation (I think Japan only), to be updated by the famous dualshock controller later the same year.

An important driver for the analog stick for Nintendo 64 and the dual analog controllers for the Playstation was the rise of 3D vector graphics. This increased the possible movement with a full dimension, but more importantly could put you into the game world in which you’d then need to control either the first person or the third person camera / direction of movement in more dimensions as well. Games like Mario 64 or Tomb Raider are very apt examles of exactly this new type of experience. Once they were there though, programmers would find interesting uses for them even in 2D, of which twin stick shooters are the most obvious examples.

First person shooters however took a little while to control well with the analog sticks. Doom was the game that popularised first person shooters on PC and came out in 1993, but it took almost a decade before first person shooters became even remotely as popular on consoles, with Halo and Socom as prime examples, and their popularity as much driven by the online gameplay as the controls. In fact, controls for fps shooters required a lot of work by developers before they became as comfortable to play on dual analog as they are today. Various dead-zone tweaks, incremental accelleration, aim-assists and a desire to play on the couch helped to work out some of the kinks and make it popular, but pick four different targets widely distributed on your screen to shoot in quick succession and someone using a mouse will still be done significantly faster than someone with an analog controller.

My point is, for all the games listed that are supposedly always superior with dual thumbstick controls or even the d-pad, they are so only because games have been designed to work with their limitations and/or play to their strengths. Heck, sometimes we’ve even forced our bodies to adapt - only recently our thumbs have taken over from our index finger as being the most used and nible, thanks to dual shock controllers, mobile phones with keypads and keyboards and so on.

Yes, buttons and controllers have unique properties that are hard to match by any other control method. Pressing a button is the most effecient way of communicating an on/off state, being the fastest and requiring the least effort, it allows your finger to rest on the button while waiting to press it, and gives you feedback on having performed the action successfully. Modern buttons on the Playstation controller are also all readable in analog mode (a property that was used a lot more back when multi-platform titles didn’t start development for a platform that lacked these features) including the d-pad (used in Gran Turismo, among others), so they even allow for pressure sensitivity in that respect.

It is easier to see these strengths though than their limitations, simply because developers work so hard at hiding them, and gamers have trained themselves for so long to adjust to them. Sometimes a new control method exposes the assists that were placed on the old control method and impression of the improvement that motion controls bring are initially obscured by mapping to the actual task in such a direct manner that a game initially becomes harder to play. Think about a racing game for instance where using a d-pad for steering is easier because the game automatically limits the angle at which you can turn your wheels and adjusts automatically for speed and the turn, where playing with the Wheel just gives you realistic control exactly as you had it in real life. Someone who is used to steering with a d-pad may be able to drive better with that for quite a while. On the other hand, someone who’s never used a d-pad but can drive a real car will be able to controll the car within a few minutes (of adjusting to the lack of 3D and gravitational feedback, among others). Give this player something like ExciteBike, Mario Kart, or Motorstorm with sixaxis controls enabled, and the translation of those real driving skills will still be almost instantaneous, because the muscle-memory required is already there and the translation required from turning a real wheel to these motions is negligible.

The biggest and most visible power to date for motion controls is its ability to capitalise on existing motor skills and muscle memory. This is what have helped give motion control games like those on the Wii their ‘casual’ image - people who never before played videogames could almost instantly pick these games up, because they connected much more closely to motor skills they already possessed. Even if the initial motion controller was somewhat limited, good design allowed for games that allowed you to input intuitive movements, even if the game only used a fraction of the actual move performed as input.

Move is a clear step up, and will greatly expand the possibilities in applying real life movements and motor skills to game situations. As an exercise, you should go through an hour or even a day of your life describing every move you make during the day while you are interacting with your environment, and think about what you are doing with just your hands. Then try to imagine a game in which you map all these actions to controller input. It’s impossible, which is why in games we’ve typically designed shortcuts in the form of macro buttons that perform certain actions in a certain way depending on context. This can be very efficient, and will always have a place, but it is also a straightjacket that prevents variation, depth, identity and freedom. Almost everyone walks, talks and moves in a slightly (sometimes dramatically) different way, but in games, you see the same set of animations getting the same set of results.

In other words, for your twin stick shooter, I can give you a version that does the same but instead of pointing the analog stick in the direction you want to shoot, you’re pointing the Move controller in the direction you want to shoot. But in addition to that, I can give you a twin Move shooter in 3D space, or any variation inbetween. And yes, you could easily say “why?”. But games once had planes that shot exclusively from left to right also, and they could have asked the same thing for a twin stick shooter.

Examples like these are legion, and I look forward to an era in which we’ll see both more games that are more immersive and intuitive, but also more powerful (two analog sticks have four axis of input, but two Move controllers 12!) and precise. There were few people who didn’t prefer Resident Evil 4 with the Wii-Mote, and I predict that Resident Evil 5 Gold with Move support will be even better received. People who played RE4 on Wii are now very excited about the possibility of Move support for Dead Space 2, although to be honest so far I have only seen Move support confirmed for its bonus content, the light-gun style Extraction (port from Wii).

Thanks for the history lesson. Too bad it’s not really relevant to my opinion on the subject. Here. Let me explain:

These are the games I want to play. I’ve yet to meet a motion controlled game - ANY motion controlled game - that made me go “Oooh. I want to play that.” I like the kinds of games I -have-. That’s why I’ve been part of this hobby for the past two and a half decades. Introducing a new type of game because we’ve come up with some “clever” new controller that requires us to completely redesign how games work is going to completely change the face of what sorts of games people have to make, and that doesn’t interest me.

I think this is a load of garbage. The Wii titles like Wii sports worked because people THOUGHT their existing motor skills were relevant, but in actuality, trying to play any of those games like the real thing is actually giving yourself a handicap. Games are never going to be able to really take advantage of this because either A) The controls are (perhaps deliberately, to avoid B) imprecise, and therefore anything more than the most basic of movements (Can you swing your arm? You can bowl!) are irrelevant or B) Controls are spot on precise to the real thing, which means that anyone who isn’t any good at the real activity becomes no good at the game, so why bother? PLUS, you -still- suffer from the fact that, fundamentally, flailing your arm through the air or twisting a “wheel” in midair is nothing like actually throwing a bowling ball or driving a car because those activities involve all kinds of feedback - mostly tactile - that will never be present in this sort of device. So you end up sacrificing the benefits of the traditional controller for a thoroughly halfassed simulation. Halfassed both because of its limitations, but also because of its DESIGN. (Aside: No shock that the analogue stick “limits how far you can turn”. Cars limit how far you can turn too.)

I’m not remotely convinced that either Move or Kinect will allow the sort of “oh yeah, the game pays attention to all your body movements!” stuff you are advertising - not because the controller might not be up to the task, but because the amount of code in the game to support that would be absurd.

So to sum up:

I like existing games
I do not like anything I’ve explored with motion control - even conceptually.
I am not interested in having the types of games I enjoy go away to make room for the types of games I don’t.
I don’t believe for a second any of your claims about what motion control can theoretically do will come true in this console generation. As far as I’m concerned, all this stuff should be back in the lab like that analogue stick you mentioned from 1982.

Maybe I’m just old fashioned. Maybe I really do just need that one killer app that absolutely has not come out yet (nor do I see any sign of it.). Maybe I’m just too damn uncreative to understand how this will revolutionize the industry. I’m betting that it’s closest to “old fashioned” but none of the stuff I see people even TALKING about for these things excites me. Maybe I LIKE sitting on the sofa instead of having to dodge every bullet myself, even if the console could somehow manage to keep track of that, which believe me, it won’t be able to.

I can hardly wait for this stuff to come out so all these rosy predictions about how awesome it is can go away in favor of that totally awesome office chair sliding game and Kinectimals.

And that’s fine. I think that this lesson has been learnt by Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony, so you can rest with some ease. However, for some type of games, there is going to be a point where there is not going to be a new version of a gametype each year, as everything has been done before. You’ll get the occasional graphical update though for sure.

Like you, I have been part of this hobby for 25 years. However, for me the reason that I’m still with it is that there has been progress. When I was ten, the first people in the street got expensive TV game systems that had ten variations of Pong programmed in, we had some Arcade machines with Pacman, and weak variations of those games on LCD screens. Not a dual shock controller in sight. Very few of what you’re playing today was possible then, though you were probably pretty close to the first Double Dragon clones?

Yes, this is the typical Wii syndrome. The Wii Mote was a lot more limited that people expected at first, but real gamers figured out the deceit pretty quickly and noticed that small, key movements are enough. Not necessarily a bad thing unless being competitive is all you care about. Even Wii Motion+ isn’t all there, and certainly not its Wii Sports Resort implementations.

Here’s an interesting contrast between table tennis in Sports Champions and the Sports Resort version with Motion+:

This holds true for many of Wii’s games, yes, and Nintendo has been smart enough to work with that to bring in new audiences. No denying that this worked for many people, but it is also the reason why I never bought a Wii for myself as like you I’m easily bored.

This is as false as people telling me that they don’t want to have singing lessons, because they can’t sing …

It’s all about varying degrees of ‘simulation’, though? Nothing like is a bit of a silly exaggeration here. Doing these same games with the controller by pressing the button four times within a fixed time interval where the precision of the timing determine strength and spin is not equally ‘nothing like’ the real thing. Sure, a Move version of Bowling will still lack the feel of swinging a heavy ball and letting it go, but other than that there doesn’t have to be much difference.

For Kinect it’s a little harder in that they can’t detect wrist rotation so they have to read the spin differently (by how much you move the arm to the left or to the right in the follow through of your throw). That still doesn’t mean that for bowling this isn’t a more fun input method than just timing your button presses. Maybe you haven’t had your fill of that kind of sports interface, but I certainly have.

If you’re referring to my comments on turning in Gran Turismo, that was about the d-pad, not the analog stick.

Would you accept at the very least, say, that something like Resident Evil 4 Wii edition is a better way to control that game? Because if you don’t, I think you are member of a very select group of people.

Assuming you mean genres and controls, otherwise you’ll probably never have to buy a new game ever again untill one of your old ones actually stops working. It’s kind of a lousy argument against motion controls though, much like people who don’t want to play videogames because they like board games. :wink: I played the crap out of board games right until I was 11-12, and after that cards and chess for a long time as well. But eventually videogames started offering so much more that it became harder and harder to go back (though I’ve played a few bouts of Chess in PS Home, and of course killed too much time with Patience on the PC as well)

For what it’s worth, I still like many old games as well. I still love Tekken, but I’m also looking forward to something new. I still love old-school platformers, but I also really appreciate when something new is added. But I also really loved a game like Populous, which I would never want to play with a dual analog or a d-pad. I used to love adventure games that allowed free text input like Leisure Suit Larry, but didn’t quite like that being fully replaced by context sensitive mouse clicks and/or fixed dialog options. I’ve loved Tetris to death, especially Classic and Super Tetris with their fantastic Time Trial modes.

I don’t believe for a second any of your claims about what motion control can theoretically do will come true in this console generation. As far as I’m concerned, all this stuff should be back in the lab like that analogue stick you mentioned from 1982.

Well, I can talk all I like and track down youtube movies, but eventually you’ll have to try it for yourself. Wii competition starts off this September, and I hope you’ll be convinced not too long after that at least the Playstation’s version of motion controls is mature and ready for primetime even for more ‘hardcore’ people.

It is one of the things I like about Move, is that it is also very useful for a lot of games that are fine to play sitting down. I’m not sure that Socom 4 is a game I want to play (Killzone 3 though definitely), but there’s a video of one of the designers of the game playing it with the Move controller sitting on a couch, and he moves so little you could be forgiven to think he’s dead.

Those two games aren’t high on my list either. Right now I’m interested in R.U.S.E. (Ubisoft’s RTS), Resident Evil 5 (I hate shooting with the analog stick in that game), Heavy Rain (haven’t played it yet), Sports Champions (already for the table tennis alone, used to play that lots back in the day, but don’t have the space for it now), Hustle Kings (cheap but beautiful PSN Pool and Snooker game, already have it but the motion controls are apparently spot-on and will be patched in free), Killzone 3, LittleBigPlanet 2 (once the level creation allows you to design direct control vehicles that you can map to the Move controller that is, which I think isn’t in there at launch, but will be patched in soon after). I think I’ll enjoy Velocity Bowling more as well once it’s patched (already have that game too), and I look forward to reliving the days of the on-rails shooters in the shape of Time Crisis (though I’m a little worried about all versions after the first three that I loved so much). If Time Crisis disappoints, then maybe The Shoot or Dead Space: Extraction will do - would be great if Dead Space 2 also supported Move for the main game, but I’m a little worried that it won’t to be honest. I’ll probably try a lot more games (and get Start the Party for guests and friends), but these are the ones that I think I’ll enjoy (some other titles could win me over if I see more of them, but not yet).

These have all been games I’ve already seen in action and have read very positive impressions about (Killzone 3 excepted, but I liked KZ2 enough to want KZ3 regardless of whether or not Move will work, but I expect I’ll enjoy it more with Move being a mouse guy as well as an on rails shooter guy at heart even if that was 10 years ago), and I can’t wait to try them out in real life.

I actually don’t think there has been a launch of something I wanted that had so many titles I wanted to play ever.

I remember when Sinistar was in Arcades, so I go a ways back, but not like, Pong ways back, and I didn’t get in on the home scene until Nintendo.

Certainly, I feel that the games market is somewhat calicfied right now (This image says it all), but I don’t think the control scheme has anything to do with this. Fundamentally, there’s very, VERY little that can’t be mapped to one of the control schemes we have right now. The market is simply stifling creativity at the moment, but hopefully we’ll see a shakeup sometime soon. Sadly, it’ll probably be the wrong kind - A “HOLY ****, we lost a ton of money on Move and Kinect! New ideas are bad! Back to making sequels to Browngrey Shooters! Quick!”

I don’t believe this is something you can blame on the Wii’s imprecision. The problem is that people want to play a GAME about, say, swordfighting. They’re not interested in learning the precise motions it takes to be a “professional” swordsman. They just want to get in there and slash some stuff. If the game exactly mirrors what the player does, then the player is going to get frustrated. If the game doesn’t exactly mirror what they do, then other players will be frustrated. And anyway, exact 1:1 mapping disintegrates the instant my sword hits someone else’s sword in the game, since the controller can’t react to this ‘collision’. My swing keeps going, but my avatar’s doesn’t, and things go all loopy.

No, it’s me telling you that people might want to play a game about F1 racing without actually being able to drive an F1 racer. Lots of games we make are about people doing things that are HARD. And if you make the game exactly mirror the real thing…

I’m afraid I’m just going to have to punt on this one, since I’ve never played Resident Evil 4 in any incarnation.

Sure. As long as all the major boardgame manufacturers aren’t going to the trade shows and advertising their awesome new video game offerings.

Similarly, I hope that it comes out and everyone looks at it and goes? WTF is this junk? Why did we get excited for this again? :slight_smile:

So why does he need Move then? Why not just play with a controller? How is it enhancing his gameplay experience?

I hate to say it, but all of this stuff interests me not at all. It’s a rare FPS that catches my attention. I don’t like to play Pool (If I did, I’d be out playing pool.) I occasionally like to bowl, so I go bowling when I want to do that. Time Crisis? I didn’t even much care for the original, but I can see the “lightgun” genre being something I could enjoy - but not nearly enough to merit a $50+ per person investment in hardware.

I generally am not impressed with launch lineups, and these are no exception.

Well obviously! You could take a whole game, and allow one button press at the beginning to start it off and play itself all the way to the end. The game could be about folding a paper plane that you can then control with the wind to end up in a special target and when you hit three targets world war 3 starts and destroys the whole world and then you have to manually restore the natural world one seed at a time, but it would work with one of the more fundamental control schemes we have right now.

It sounds a little far fetched, but one of the many forms in which this exists in current games is called quick-time events. :wink: In Word we also calll them Macros.

You may not have to worry too much though …

… just listen to these words from one of the main designers of the Move controller:

If you’re really interested, then just watch some videos of people playing the swordfighting game in Sports Champions. I don’t see very many people being annoyed much with it, neither serious looking adults nor little kids.

Sony’s philosophy in Sports Champions is that you can play every activity on three difficulty levels, where easy has a lot of handholding and hard is close to an actual simulation. A big help here is that in multi-player, each player can choose his preferred difficulty … I could choose hard for table tennis and play with someone who can barely play table tennis, and we could still have a decent match. Same for racing games, although in that case I tend to also need to get a slower car most of the time as realism just helps me be faster, as that’s my favorite genre.

That brings me smoothly to another point - I was racing on the actual Nurburgring not two months ago with my father. I’ve been there a few times before, but the problem with that kind of thing is money … having a suitable car is costly, just owning and insurance, and having it stand somewhere, racing in real life is great but if I had to list all the downsides and cost (starting with the cost per lap, fuel, fuel for getting there, time to drive there, car wear, insurance, etc. etc.) I could go on for an uncomfortably long time. Whatever games can do to bring me closer to the real experience in that regard is of big interest to me. 3D is a good example, as the real Nurburgring has some incredibly steep and long ups and downs, lots of variation in all dimensions. Before I went there the first time I drove about 26 laps (a lap has ~170 turns over 22km) of practice, and amazingly taught me the real track perfectly. The biggest difference however was the sense of depth that reality gave me, the feeling of ‘is my car even going to make it up there??’. If the 3D support in Gran Turismo 5 can replicate that feeling that alone is going to be worth a lot of money to me. Sure, I’ll still miss being pressed into my seat and being unable to breathe for a few seconds in some areas of the tracks, but each time I’m getting closer to the real thing, with none of the downsides of reality. There are plenty more activities like that which you just aren’t going to be able to do in real life.

In this case because pointing with the Move controller is far nicer than pointing with the analog stick.

One thing we share - I played through only two fps’s this generation.

You made your point. :wink: I think I know where you stand on this by now. I’ll look out and see if I can find a title that I think does tickle your fancy, but I can tell that’s going to be hard. :slight_smile: