The following is a comment I posted over on the latest GameCritic’s podcast. It may seem a little rantish, but that’s why I’m going to expand on it at the end.
—————
You said during the podcast that Nintendo had revolutionized gaming. I have to respectfully disagree. They have only revolutionized it superficially. What they have done replaced button presses with Wii-mote waggles. The idea is to simplify gaming with simple controls that can make sense. And for Wii Bowling or Wii Tennis its perfect. But as soon as you take the control outside of that simple one type movement control you up the complexity of the game. There may only be one button, but if you translated each movement to a button press or analog stick movement you’d realize how equal the complexity is for anything other than the mini-game compilations. Given the nature of motion control at present and its impreciseness it makes the controller even more complex and frustrating.
It has been proven with testing that for an abstract action a button press that stays consistent within the game, i.e the same button for the same action, makes more sense than trying to emulate the action, mainly because it is easier to replicate input with a thumb press than it is to move the entire arm in the exact same manner.
I have no doubt that motion control can offer a different experience, but developers are still treating it as a standard controller and are having to make up for the loss of button with waggle. Then there are the games that do not need it, but add it in out of some necessity of being on the Wii. Twilight Princess comes to mind where you had to act out many of the actions, where the Gamecube controller used a few simple button presses to perform the same actions.
Yes the current gen controller are prohibitive, as were last gen. In fact there is a high learning curve for new gamers, but kids some how manage it. That’s another issue of cognitive age response and learning, but the NES has a D-pad and 2 buttons. Some games now can work with that. The idea is not to simplify the machine, but the in-game system. If you gave a newcomer a game on the 360 or PS3 that only utilized the d-pad and two buttons there would be no problem in getting into it.
———–
I should add some testimonial I hear about the new Wii Motion Plus. I cannot verify the validity of these comments, but it sounds truthful to me. That yes it does change gaming on the Wii, but does come with some problems. Namely, when the Wii first came out people were waving their whole arms, because that is how they thought and were told it would work, but then people adapted to only moving their wrists, for it was the basic movement not the degree that mattered. Now Wii Motion Plus changes all that because now you have to control it like you first thought it would work and will cause people to re-adapt.
It is a minor concern yes, but it is worth saying. It also attaches to my argument of the Wii-mote’s movements being a replacement for button presses. Now with full motion recognition it is supposed to have 1-1 replication. The thing is you can only replicate simple motions. If you design something too difficult people would not be able to replicate the action in their own house. The basic idea of escapism that most, not all, games are based upon would suffer with this idea. Sword, tennis racket, baseball bat swinging are all basic motions that we all understand in real life and replicate on the Wii. However if you want any finesse with those motions or to do more complex motions like rowing, driving, etc. you will be sorely disappointed. One problem is that it does take some practice or practical knowledge of those activities to do them correctly. Secondly, there is a certain amount of resistance required to do them properly. Without that resistance, with the new fine motion controls you are going to overshoot what you were doing, it is going to look ridiculous and immersive breaking on screen and more than likely you are going to fail. I can see scenarios where the motion breaks the experience instead of immersing you.
Example: Say you are rowing a boat the Wii-mote and Nun-chuck are the oars. But you speed up because you get into it and there being no real water resistance you suddenly see your character flapping the oars around like a chicken with its wings. A real person cannot row like that and yet you are seeing it. Immersion broken.
It wasn’t understood when it was first created, but the control is much more than an input device. It is a blank slate of iconography. Each button, each analog stick is a symbol for an action. It is different for every game, so the controller is a blank slate. The player learns and know that the icons (buttons) are, but they have no meaning on their own. There are basic principles that people understand about the buttons, because they generally hold true through all games and if not there is a reason for it. In North America anyway on the Playstation, X is ok, O is cancel, left analog stick for movement, right analog stick for camera. This works for First Person shooters as well. In Japan X and O are reversed, but they remain the same for all games in that region. The only exception I can think of is the Metal Gear Solid series that does that for specific purposes, but that is getting a bit of topic. The controller is a bunch of icons. The game than tells you what those icons and symbols mean. You then associate when you need to do something with that icon for the rest of the game. Humans are very iconographic. We associate people, concepts, countries and ourselves with icons and symbols of the greater whole.
The Wii-mote in the name of simplifying the control removes that iconographic interface. People get sucked in by meaning and association, its why we can read, because letters are nothing but icons to sounds. Movement however is not an icon. You cannot be shown a picture of it and understand what the motion means to the game world. You may know to move the Wii-mote left will aim left, but there is no mental association going on that allows your conscious mind to focus on the interactive area, but rather on the interactive motion of your avatar. It forces the mind to think about what you are doing step by step rather than as a whole experience. That is not how people function in the real world. We do not think about every step we take, we just walk. We do not take into account every letter in this sentence you are reading right now, we just read it and comprehend what it is saying.
Simplification is needed for new gamers in the current market, but the Wii and everyone copying them is the entirely wrong approach. Simplifying means cutting away complexity, not replacing it. Most of the Wii games, use the classic Wii controller, which has the same amount of buttons are a Gamecube controller. If you want it to be simple, create games that could be played with an NES controller. Everyone got that back in the day. There is only a D-pad and two buttons to worry about, but the association will stick and it the representation can be understood by the player as he immerses himself in the game.
The biggest problem I have with this post is how you try and talk about what kind of controls/games the Wii offers when that’s nearly impossible to pin down. There are a lot of different kind of games on the Wii that represent a wide variety of control types/quality. Unfortuantely, you don’t do a good enough job coming up with good examples and using them to shape your opinions.
Instead of getting into the design of controls or mechanics you fumble around in generalities. You also make a few vague mentions of some interesting design problems (1 to 1 motion and the possibilities of a disconnection between input and the reaction of the game), but without specifics or any real insight, even those comments come off as cursory as the rest.
If you programming for the Wiimote and/or studied the games that best use motion controls/pointer/some combination of what the Wiimote has to offer, then you’d understanding things more clearly.
The way you talk/think about complexity and the inaccuracies of the Wiimote need to be readdressed. In my article 3D Control of 3D (http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2008/7/24/3d-control-of-3d.html) I talk about how the type of controller input can bridge the input gap between the player and game because you can control more intuitively and directly instead of translating inputs all the time. Instead of talking about imaginary gamers and how they play games poorly, get confused, and flail about, you should just study the games.
Every time you say “developers” and “most games” and “people” I cringe at the gross oversight. You comments about the iconography of the control/symbols is an extreme interpretation of a common human tendency that doesn’t add anything to the post as a whole.
Better luck next time.
First I’d like to link to similar opinion piece done by Stephen Totilo at Kotaku. http://kotaku.com/5317991/33-months-of-motion-control-the-wiis-hidden-struggle
@Richard Terrell First off thank you for the link, I will read it when I get around to it. But secondly, though I appreciate your critique of my writing, it isn’t really helpful to my arguement. In fact not once do you stipulate whether or not you agree with it.
I stated an opinion that was at first in response to a podcast. These are merely thoughts and are not backed up by design expirience as I have none and freely admit that. I understand game design is your blog’s thing and I accept that, but I the little I know about game design is more exploratory analysis than iron fact. Additionally this is not the place I do design analysis. I work for a design blog. That is where any of that type of analysis goes.
This was done as a response, it is linked, to the cultural idea of where the Wii stands. In particular one section of the podcast that talks about the difference in motion control to the other consoles. Generally, there’s that gross oversight again, I don’t have much to say when it comes to the nitty gritty of game design, because at best I would be a washboard amatuer.
But if you want examples to my experience with the Wii’s controls: In SSBB the motion control is pointless as we used gamecube controllers, Resident Evil: Umberlla Chronicles was very underwhellming and would have been better with the light gun, Super Mario Galaxy I ended up using the Wii-mote and Nun chuck like a controller and found really no value with the motion control, Wii Sports granted was perfect but its too simple for much more than a Wii-mote tutorial, Wario Ware: Smooth Moves granted worked well but only on account of the fast and reckless pace of a 15 person muliplayer free-for-all we played.
As for my comments on iconogrpahy being the extreme interpretation of a common human tendency, I have to dissagree. If it is a common human tendency than it merits some thought and consideration. At the moment I feel myself to be right and have hit upon something worthy of futher consideration. I will look into the idea further, but like I said before, that type of post will not appear here, but on CreativeFluff.com. I do post links to my writing on other sites if it is a full post unto itself.
For Totilo’s article, which I found pretty off the mark but well written….
“Yet, since the Wii Remote birthed the great Wii Sports, it’s no stretch to claim that the revolutionary Remote has spawned no other great motion control games.”
Though, Totilo very clearly writes about the wide, sweeping trends of Nintendo’s motion controls (the revolution), statements like this are just garbage. Even if he was going by the sales numbers, that’s just one way of measuring a game’s greatness. He also seems to make an odd distinction between games completely controlled by motions and every other type of game. Looking at Wii games like this fosters a kind of all-or-nothing, exclusive view that creates greatly polarized options like his and yours. Without understanding the design of controls, wiimote controls, or motion controls everything that’s said from here on out tends to be myopic at best.
“Gamers groan at the flimsy motion controls mapped to action games. A shake of a hand replaces what could have been the press of a button. In game after game, motion control presents a different option, but one that seldom seems better.”
What’s “better” in this case is tricky. The industry as a whole thought more buttons on their controllers was better. In some ways it was. In other ways, like how it influenced the development of overly complicated games, it wasn’t.
So if motion controls poorly replace buttons in low quality games, sure gamers groan. But, like with every console and every kind of innovation, who cares about the bad games/examples that are copy cats doing things all wrong. Every console has a wealth of “bad” games.
Even when motion controls present a different but not better options, that’s still acceptable. Even for a revolution, every aspect can’t have a hands down 100% conversation rate.
“Mario and Zelda have not been transformed into adventures of motion-based brilliance.”
Let’s see. The games were amazing. Sold well. Reviewed well. And had motion control (in addition to pointer control) throughout the game. Seems to me that Totilo’s lame criteria is more evident here. He’s merely making excuses for games and poorly throwing around his opinion.
“Blockbusters Mario Kart Wii and Guitar Hero tucked it away in shells shaped like wheels and guitars, doing little to convince anyone that motion control was a must.”
Convince anyone eh? And who is anyone? All the gamer parents I’ve talked to/overheard talking about how great the Wii wheel is? Those gamers that wouldn’t play without the Wii wheel? To them it’s a must.
“A new Zelda down-played it. A new Mario limited its motion-control element, as have so many Wii games, to the occasional vibration of a player’s right hand.”
Occasional vibrations means every time you want to swing your sword? Perhaps. But every time you want to spin in Galaxy? That’s falls under frequent (unless, of course, you’re one of those players who doesn’t use the RUN button in SMB. You could very well get by without spin attacking much).
Still, analyzing the motion controls of games like this is more than counting the number of functions that require it. It’s about looking at the design as a whole and how the game is played. Totilo’s doesn’t seem to do any of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I wasn’t aware that I had to be helpful to your argument, nor had to agree/disagree with it to make a comment.
“but I the little I know about game design is more exploratory analysis”
Call it what you want. I have a problem with the ideas expressd on this page. Whether you’re responding to a comment from another place or not, what’s written here is what I focused on. If I find a point of weakness or contention in the writing, it reflects on the exploratory analysis.
“Generally, there’s that gross oversight again, I don’t have much to say when it comes to the nitty gritty of game design, because at best I would be a washboard amatuer.”
Don’t beat yourself up, and there’s no need to play that card. It’s not so nitty gritty as thinking carefully and thoughtfully. You don’t have to have a lot of game design experience to write cautiously and carefully about things at the fringe of your experience. If you have limited experience, then say in my experience. If you haven’t studied an example thoroughly, then express that. If you have an idea that may or may not pan out, then propose it in a way that lets the reader know where you’re coming from.
Also, you and Totilo seem focused on “motion controls,” yet you ignore the Wiimote’s pointer controls as if they don’t require motion to utilize. Like the DS, which has a variety of different control options/features that many games writers arbitrarily prioritize as being more important than others or worse look at with an “use all the features!” view, the Wiimote has accelerometer, pointer, and button controls. Using any combination of these controls qualifies as motion controls.
“Resident Evil: Umberlla Chronicles was very underwhellming and would have been better with the light gun”
Better? Perhaps. More expensive? Surely. Impractical. You bet. Underwhelming? Aren’t we talking about control implementation. I thought the game was fine control wise.
“Super Mario Galaxy I ended up using the Wii-mote and Nun chuck like a controller and found really no value with the motion control”
So you found no value? Does that mean you weren’t looking for it or you just didn’t find any. Because I value how I can spin the controller to make Mario spin in the game. I Value always having that function easily accessible because it’s not mapped to a button but built into the motion controls of the controller itself.
“Wii Sports granted was perfect but its too simple for much more than a Wii-mote tutorial”
Simple meaning it has a lot of intricacies, nuances, and variation to its precise controls? Wii Sports was one of my games of the year for many reasons. But one of the reasons is because there’s so much to learn and delve into with just the mechanics. Try getting platinum metals on the Tennis/Bowling/Boxing games and you’ll understand how engaging the controls are and how precise they can be.
Seriously, a tutorial? That’s just a rash and shallow opinion on a product that doesn’t deserve it.
“Wario Ware: Smooth Moves granted worked well but only on account of the fast and reckless pace of a 15 person muliplayer free-for-all we played.”
Wow. It’s like everything you say ignores large parts of these games. Smooth Moves does have a whole single player mode with mini games to play. The controls work fairly well throughout.
The way you related your comments on iconography to the Wii controls topic is the part I disagreed with most. Introducing the idea like you did wasn’t enough to support it or weave it into the post as a whole. Even if the topic is worth investigating, it wasn’t here.