You guys may have noticed that last week, I was especially interested in how you felt about accessibility. I worried about Nintendo's potential to damage the medium by over-doing boundary-busting, and I polled you on how ready you were to ditch button-mashing for gesture-based gaming.
There's been a method to my madness, and this is it. My feature at Kotaku this month picks some of the industry's great brains to make the assertion that there is plenty of value left -- culturally, emotionally and simply in terms of gameplay -- in the hand-held, button-equipped controller.
There are a lot of things I don't want to let go of. Read the feature and let me know what you think.
25 comments:
To me, there were (at least!) two excellent points here.
The first is illustrated by this quote:
Sorry to sound elitist, but I like that not everybody understands how to play games, and I doubt that I'm alone," says Lantz, who's also director of New York University's Game Center. "That games require effort and a particular kind of tricky literacy is one of the things that makes them cool. Would pianos be better if everyone could play them? Would punk rock sound better if your grandparents liked it?"
There's nothing wrong with some barriers. Becoming 'good' at gaming takes some effort, requires learning, and then requires practice -- just as it is with almost every other form of recreational activity. Ever tried golf?
The second is illustrated here,
At some point, a Wii Tennis player must have had someone show them how to hold a real racket, or have had the experience of viewing tennis matches in order to understand the way racket and ball are intended to interact. A tennis racket is already a perfect controller for an existing game – without it, Wii Tennis wouldn't be "intuitive" at all, Lantz says.
As usual, great article.
I wonder if there's not some sort of uncanny valley effect here, where the closer you get to realism it will actually negate the experience?
I know for me, personally, say a Tiger Woods that actually requires me to make a good golf swing will be horrible, because I stink at real golf. But I'm pretty good with the controller version.
Great article Leigh.
I for one am not ready to give up the controller. Personally, I am not even a fan of the WiiMote, as I think it is an incredibly unintuitive device.
Natal makes me think of those old TV game shows where people were super imposed over a screen and they had to dodge objects by watching a separate screen. It was awkward for everyone involved, and that's what I think of when I think of Natal and a "body-controlled" game.
I believe the "soul" of the game lies with the game itself, with the narrative and characters (regardless of how these elements appear), and not with the control scheme or anything else. Don't take away my controller!
Great article! There were a lot of points there that I hadn't thought of when I was trying to show why I'd rather not "be the controller".
Incidentally, like that comment about the wheel still being around, wouldn't Trauma Team be great if it were ported to Sony's DualWand (or whatever they decide to call those things)? The wands themselves look a lot like existing remote surgery tools (except wireless), so the kind of feedback might be great.
Especially if it maps to the scalpel in the game :D
Great article! You (and those you quoted) definitely hit on a lot of points that support keeping controllers around!
I think it's easy to get caught up in the hype of these new possibilities and revolutions in our industry, so it's good to have my head yanked back out every now-and-then. Sure, sometimes it seems cool to think about actually kicking fake ninjas (because that's shiny and new!), but in general I'd like to relax and press a button.
One thing I worry about is that, in general, the accessibility of these new motion control schemes will be limited to those with full use of their bodies. The handicapped, the elderly, the sick (whether it's a long-term illness or just the common cold for a weekend) are all capable of using a controller to play games. What they can't necessarily do is jump around and wave their arms energetically. I love games, and it saddens me to think that a minority of potential gamers, however small that demographic might be, won't have the ability to play them.
I also have always valued video games because, in general, they are games of the mind. If you have a working brain and working hands, you can learn to succeed as a gamer. I think that has great value, because in playing, and in competing, it's all about the mind. You can forget you're even holding a controller (or at least I do) because it's so natural.
The ICO quote is king. Again, well done!
Great information! Keep it up! I also write articles about Video Game Consoles and I write for a site called Console Bliss
I would love to do a blogroll link exchange with you since we have a lot of the same kind of content. Please just visit my site and leave me a comment if you want to do the exchange.
I think there is something to be said about games that use the barrier of the controller in a uniquely immersive way. Many people remember Psycho Mantis moving the controller with his mind, or Naomi causing the controller to vibrate for a massage, but other games use controller vibration, or even different kinds of controllers, to allow for an immersive feel. A great recent example is in the opening sequence of Persona 4, where shaking a particular characters hand causes the controller to vibrate a little bit. The Wiimote and the Steel Battalion Controller are other examples of how the object used to control the game can be valuable for immersion.
I guess what I'm getting at here is that motion sensitive controllers are nice for some things, but personally, I'm wary of what Natal is bringing to the industry as a whole. The current controller is the standard, so by default it can't actually take away from the experience, but motion sensitive gameplay paripherals don't necessarily add anything to the game, and can at times detract from the experience (No Samus, fire that way!)
I've said before that the big thing about motion control isn't the motion its the simplicity of the interface. Meaning that its like a mouse or an old Atari joystick. You point in the direction you want to go and you go that direction.
But the simplicity of the interface limits what games can actually do. Its a lot like games on the PC that can be played with the mouse alone. Your input is limited and so your actiosn are limited.
A practical problem that comes about from the availability of these new controllers is the new TV-Console-Player arrangements that are necessary. I'll need to go buy some stylish ultra-modern furniture and rent an incredibly spacious new apartment before I can play.
Perhaps the solution is not to settle on a single, specific solution, but to provide choices so that the type of control or interactivity that appeals most to the player is available.
I have a fancy expensive Logitech Momo force feedback steering wheel that goes a long way towards providing an immersive experience in driving games, but it takes a lot more skill to use it to control a vehicle than using a gamepad. (It also requires that I clear my desk to set it up and clamp it down.) I find that I use the gamepad more often - especially when I am playing more casually.
I know most console gamers are familiar and comfortable with gamepads for FPS games, but I have been WASD-ing so long that it is second nature to me. I don't want or need to learn a new controller or control scheme for every new title.
I have played older baseball and golf titles that used various keyboard and mouse arrangements and that has been fine. Giving me a little plastic club or bat isn't going to have me swinging like a pro - and if the game requires that I do emulate the movements of a pro, it will cease to be enjoyable.
The perfect controller is the one that doesn't distract you from the game, the one that doesn't constantly remind you that it is there serving as an interface between your intentions and the action on the screen. That controller may be different for different people playing the same game.
-Sandman
I love how Leigh's articles will perfectly articulate my position on a subject before I myself realize what, precisely, my position is.
And yes, the ICO example was perfect.
Couldn't agree more. I think the new Tony Hawk game will be a gauge on exactly how much this fascination with motion control goes.
A friend of mine was talking to me, asking me if it'd be cool to play a FPS with a motion controller or NATAL (dodging, ducking, running, etc.). I didn't think so, just because I like being able to just pick up a controller after a long day and just play, not jump around and peek around corners.
I think motion control and the like has a place in gaming, but I don't think that it has made traditional, classic controllers unnecessary.
Great piece. It's good to see that others agree that not only are controllers NOT outdated relics of prehistoric gaming, but that they remain both relevant and necessary.
Interesting how motion control marketers tout the breaking down of barriers, when one could easily make the argument that the whole idea of the controller in the first place was to break down the barriers of skill, precision, and, let's face it, EFFORT that keep people from actually performing the actions that we simulate by proxy in videogames.
In a medium defined by escapism and fantasy, where we play as heroes, world-class athletes, and other avatars characterized by their overall exceptional abilities, is motion control really synonymous with accessibility? As motion control technology gets closer and closer to 1-to-1 sensitivity, don't the inherent learning curves for complex mechanics like sword fighting, playing basketball, or shooting a sniper rifle ramp up exponentially?
Proponents of motion control like to believe that the artifice of an abstracted control device like a gamepad ruin the realism and immersion necessary to accessibility. But really, are realistic motions and mechanics what make a game accessible? Hardly, as without the artifice and abstraction inherent in ALL games, both in design and control scheme, games would cease to be both accessible and fun. I mean, there's a reason we don't travel weeks in real time to cross overworld maps and there's a pretty obvious reason why we shouldn't have to be better than the real Tiger Woods to actually beat him in a video game.
I agree with Robert that the real draw of the Wii wasn't the fact that the controller is motion sensitive, but just that it's SIMPLIFIED. Not only is it simplified, it was designed with a very well-defined goal in mind—the remote control, a device that pretty much all people are familiar with, Let's not forget that the Wii also arrived on the scene in prime position to pounce on the casual market due to its initial price point, bundled game, focus on local multiplayer, small sleek design, and simple menus. Any PR schpeel that tries to pretend that this motion control bonanza is about innovation and intuitive accessibility and not just about duplicating Nintendo's "economic miracle" is nothing more than disingenuous lip service.
Interesting article and a good read, but a few things:
1. It’s exceptionally unlikely that controllers will ever disappear entirely, so the article’s angle seems a tad extremist. Like, "one day I might have to stand up to play a game - Nooooooo!"
2. “That games require effort and a particular kind of tricky literacy is one of the things that makes them cool… Would punk rock sound better if your grandparents liked it?”
Game (controller) literacy does not make games cool, it contributes to them being a niche media, which is not the same. There’s a big difference between being able to play a game well (for example, pulling off a massive combo string) and being able to play a game full stop. If you can do the former, that’s cool. If you can do the latter, that really shouldn’t be noteworthy or even an issue. Unfortunately, a controller with two sticks, a d-pad and 11 buttons is, in fact, confusing to a non-gamer and does act as a barrier that really needn’t exist unless it absolutely has to.
Film and music can be appreciated more fully by someone that has a related education or awareness of intertextual references, but these are not necessary to just watch a movie or hear a song. As great as it would be for my grandparents to tell me they’ve been getting into Carbonas lately, that’s not going to happen. However, there’s nothing at all to *physically* impede their experiencing that music in the first place (culturally, perhaps, but not physically).
3. “Reducing the physical interface, then, might mean less immersion for games.”
As a conclusion drawn from an example of Train’s physical components, and from the description of how these tailored components work within Train, this is exceptionally weak an argument. It sounds like those different objects (the broken glass, the trains and pawns) are contributing subtle cues to the gamer that become clear once they reach the end, and their relevance to and reference of the Holocaust is directly understood by and impacts that player.
I really can’t imagine any scenario in which I’ll be (for example) reduced to tears by a game and then look down and understand the controller itself and its function as an object is directly linked to that emotional reaction (Apart from using the 360’s d-pad to play Street Fighter 4).
The only real exceptions at the moment are specifically tailored peripherals such as guitar hero guitars, which you accuse of playing into this 'immersive fallacy', though without them the most popular rhythm games today would be entirely different and (likely) much less appealing/enjoyable experiences.
4. "a Wii Tennis player must have... had the experience of viewing tennis matches... Does that mean motion controls are limited to only translating things people already have an idea of how to do? If so, that's quite a limitation."
Not in the slightest. As you acknowledge, a Wii tennis player only really needs to have witnessed and have a vague idea in their head of how to play tennis. Everyone is familiar with the basic motions associated with driving, running, jumping, shooting, and whatever-ing that make up the bulk of gameplay these days.
Don't get me wrong, I love controllers and hope that they stick around. However, I'm also open to new, alternate game experiences as technology progresses.
I want videogame evolution to be about more than just better graphics.
A lot of the comments opposing these new motion controls (on kotaku, at least) are in the vein of "games should be relaxing, and something I can do with minimum exertion"
What dictates that this need be the case? Interactive media such as videogames are perhaps the most suited to offer people new and unique experiences, and to complain about and try to curb game evolution is entirely counterproductive to the future of the medium.
Personally, I'm not entirely sold on Natal either, but I am interested in what experience it can offer me as a gamer.
Great article.
Personally, I think that all that research will open up an entire new genre of games, rather than totally substitute the controller. It's like McLuhan "The medium is the message".
So, I have no worries about seeing the controller disappear. After all, even Nintendo Wii incorporated a standard controller in its interaction system. And that is used in a lot of games, instead motion controls.
As for the 1:1 perfect simulation, I've written some reflection on my blog here, stating that play needs constraints, and, if a tennis simulation is driven by a perfect 1:1 controller, then I will need to be a pro tennis player to have fun.
The problem I have with the Wii remote and i always had with the wii remote is that its only good for some games. You see in a few Wii games that using the control is horrible so its better to use the buttons(Punch Out) or they don't even bother with the motion controls(Super Smash Bros). its already proven that some games are just better with the control scheme. And i do have to hold my hand up here, some games are better with the wii motion controls, like I can't imagine playing tennis anymore without the wii motion controls because going back to the controller makes it seem very boring.
So maybe theres enough space for both worlds.
The Wii Tennis comment is what really drove your point home for me.
If you do encounter someone who has never played or seen Tennis - unlikely but entirely possible - having to go through different motions may be a bigger barrier than "get to the ball with these direction keys and press A to hit it."
Anyone who tried playing SSX on the Wii can attest to how complex symbolic gestures can get. Due to how unresponsive those gestures are, even with Natal, I don't see controllers going away any time soon.
I don't WANT to swing my arms around playing a normal game, and with the games I play, tight control matters. I can't afford for a dust particle to obscure my sensor bar at a critical moment.
This is definitely not an either/or issue. The drawbacks of both approaches are pretty obvious.
That said, I really want to make a plea to do less with more. When I downloaded the Ratatouille platformer demo for my wife to try -- my wife who kicks my ass at Galaga, loves Tiger Woods Golf and Viva Pinata -- she didn't have a chance. As soon as the controller diagram popped up and every goddamn button, trigger, and D-pad direction was mapped to something, I knew there was no chance she would get into this allegedly-mainstream game based on a movie she loved.
So that's my question: why the hell do game designers insist on filling out the entire controller with affordances on titles where a simpler approach would be a lot more appropriate?
On my current project, which is aimed at a broader audience, I've fought a steady battle to eliminate controls from the interface. I killed the right joystick, then I killed the D-Pad, and now I'm holding the line at putting functionality on the triggers. It's a challenge because the feeling is always, "Hey, we have all these buttons, let's use 'em!" But I don't want to use all these buttons precisely because we have so damn many of them.
Torpex's game Schizoid on XBLA made a fun game using just the left joystick and not a single button. I wish more developers would think that creatively.
hey tks! \o/
Slightly off topic, I want to tell you how much I appreciate your (and Brenda Brathwaite's) decision to not be afraid to suggest the inherent similarities in board gaming and video gaming. It seems most gamers loathe discussing board games in any context of video games. I've made comments suggesting that video games can learn and have learned a lot from the simplistic yet accessible design of board games, only to have them laughed off: "Board games are nothing like video games! You can't compare the two!" I suppose it's just narrow thinking concerning what constitutes a "game", but still, it's nice to see anyone else (let alone someone with your expertise) "go there" :-)
Marble Madness was never as fun without the arcade roller ball control.
I love Dual Shocks, but they are only the standard because they can be used for a wide array of games. The controller limits game design, not necessarily in a bad way, but adding new kinds of controllers allows for new kinds of game. Unfortunately, they also take up valuable shelf space, so it's most practical to have a dual shock. We've seen many controllers over the years and each gave a different feel playing Nintendo over Atari or Colecovision felt very different because of the change in controller design. Natal stands a shot because there are so many ways the body could be used to control the action. Many of those options will be exhausting though, so the classic controller will probably continue to reign supreme.
Traditional controllers will not drift into extinction. Even if they relinquish a great degree of exclusive application in videogames (and that's a big "IF"), there will remain a strong market for them. Variety and choice provide ample room for both gestures & buttons so long as consumers demand it.
As far as the Kotaku article's notion that motion-control interfaces may create less immersion than the venerable controller, I find it dubious.
The NES gamepad pretty much established the basic skeleton of contemporary controller design. Because it differed from other controllers before it, everyone who wanted to play games on Nintendo's console started at the same level. After the age of the NES, however, the wider audience for console gaming shrunk noticeably.
With many of us core gamers having begun our dedication to this medium on the NES, a built-in advantage was cultivated in regard to learning how to play videogames. We've had years of precedent to develop our now second-nature grasp of control mechanics. People who stopped gaming after the NES do not enjoy such a luxury.
It is this condition that Leigh and other voices in game journalism and the industry seem to neglect when raising their concerns about "the new motion-control craze."
When human beings look at something that feels alien to them, the usual response is to shy away from it. Familiarity is an important step towards immersion. Even for novice players who actively desire to get into videogames, all those buttons, thumbsticks and triggers irritate them---they only serve to distract.
I find myself hard-pressed to believe that a non-gamer will feel more involved in an FPS title using that plastic nightmare than by simply making the motions for aiming and shooting. I might be oversimplifying with that example, but the premise holds.
To be sure, I don't think Leigh's analysis is suggesting that those who cannot acclimate to our standard inputs should "Practice MOAR or GTFO our v1de0 GameZ!", but that attitude does feel implicit if you buy into this idea of controllers being more immersive than motion.
Decisions on what control interfaces are used for particular games should be dependent on the needs and preferences of the individual consumer. I'll stick with my plastic nightmare in most cases. If someone else has an easier time getting into a racer by holding an imaginary wheel, what's wrong with that? You could argue that they should try using a steering wheel controller, but you would then have to logically apply that argument to other genres; and who really wants to purchase a whole series of specialized controllers for different game types?
What's more, even if I lent consideration to "the immersive fallacy" concept, history suggests that motion control would not necessitate the decline of the original experience:
Concerts did not go away after recorded music arrived on the scene. Using pyrotechnics or other modern technology, live musical performances are more unforgettable than ever.
Plays did not die off in the wake of the motion picture. A thriving culture persists around them and the acting talent has risen due to young performers seeking Hollywood's attention.
Prose certainly did not suffer any ill effects from the advent of comic books. In fact, the two mediums are now sharing an interchangeable pool of writing talent, enriching each other.
All in all, "to each their own" I say. I also want to express my agreement with John Scott Tynes about developers doing more with less on our controllers. Let us not forget what Atari managed to accomplish with nothing more than a joystick and one button.
What you're looking for, is the Joystique: http://loadingreadyrun.com/videos/view/440/The-Joystique
Also the Wii Classic Controller has taken over from the Wiimote in playing games like Mariokart in our flat. A chilling look at people not wanting to wave around like mooks to drive a car.
We'd be pretty stuck without regular controllers for our interaction, but besides that obvious bias, I have to come out in agreement of - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
As a relevant example, would you imaging playing GTA with gesture only? I think "controls" are in everyday life too much to be cast aside, from the humble ATM to the switches and gizmos in the car.
Post a Comment