The future of Wii/Motion control: when will it be "hardcore"?

[YoshiM]

The debates about the Wii and its motion controls are well documented here. There have been some seriously heated debates about the controls, so heated that threads have been closed because of it. I'm not posting this to fan those flames but to get an idea what other people's thoughts are about the future of motion controls: how long will it be before motion controls are for the "hardcore" gamer?

As many of us have seen, the standard controller for playing games have steadily changed over the years. We started out with spinning paddles and single buttons, moving up to joysticks a few years later. In the late 70's/early 80's we saw game systems like the Intellivision and Odyssey 2 try to tout their complex controls as being "more fun" as you have more options (and possibly a hand cramp, at least with the INTV). The NES came out, also being praised as a family system which had a controller with two action buttons. Sega Genesis had three to six if you count the six-button fighting pad. The SNES had six buttons right out of the box. Saturn had eight. PSX also had eight but then had ten if you count the analog sticks' capabilities. N64 had nine total. Last generation's buttons hung around the six to ten mark with every controller having two analog sticks.

So now the Wii is here to bring console gaming back to its roots. You have a motion control scheme that, when well implemented, is easy to pick up and use as the motions are pretty intuitive. Swing the remote to swing a bat, do a putting motion to hit a virtual golf ball into a cup, strike toward the screen to punch, move the wrist to point a crosshairs or arrow to "click" something-all stuff most people can do without practice.

What happens when the next generation comes around and the motion control concept becomes more mainstream? The controls get refined, more precise. Developers get a better grip on how to implement the motion controls and make tighter games. Now instead of a little wiggle to whack a golf ball straight and true you really need to go through a regular swing and hope you don't hook or slice. Or instead of swinging a bat at the right time and speed to hit a baseball out of the park you have to know where you're positioned and make sure your bat is in the right place to not whiff. Could the games and controls become too realistic to the point where Wii Sports players could no longer play against those who are actually better at the sport? Will we in say two to four game generations be looking at going back to a joystick and button as it will attract a "casual" market?

Just something I've been pondering since the last debate, figure I'd share and I'm interested to see what others think.

[Hwj_Chim]

I could see The consoles all going to motion control. When that happens is the day I stop playing modern consoles. I just don't like the motion controls. My hope for the next consoles is that the companies get smart and keep with the traditional controller layout.

this is all my opinion of coarse so take it as you like

[UniHamachi]

I think the pointer is here to stay, but motion control (aka waggle) is still sketchy to this point. Only WiiSports has really gotten it right, and I think that's because it eschews pressing buttons for control altogether (with bowling, you actually let go of the B trigger, simulating letting go of the ball). If you could design a game where moving around the remote is 90% of the input, you could have a successful waggle game, but I think that the technology is still too imprecise for it to take over as the primary means of game control.

[Greg2600]

I think as long as the game gives you the option of motion versus gamepad, I have no problem with them. I'm not a fan of motion control either.

[Rob2600]

motion control (aka waggle) is still sketchy ... I think that the technology is still too imprecise for it to take over as the primary means of game control.

According to an interview with Johnny Chung Lee (known for his experiments with the Wii remote), the Wii remote's hardware is actually very good. It's the programmers that are still getting used to interpreting the complex motion data and implementing it better in games. Motion controls will continue to improve with time in the software.

Listen to the interview:

The Wiire podcast episode 93


Visit Johnny Chung Lee's web site:

Johnny Chung Lee - Projects - Wii

"As of September 2007, Nintendo has sold over 13 million Wii game consoles. This significantly exceeds the number of Tablet PCs in use today. This makes the Wii Remote one of the most common computer input devices in the world. It also happens to be one of the most sophisticated. It contains a 1024x768 infrared camera with built-in hardware blob tracking of up to 4 points at 100Hz. This significantly out performs any PC 'webcam' available today."

He has a few videos on his site which show really cool projects and capabilities of the Wii remote.

[UniHamachi]

I am familiar with Johnny Chung Lee's work, and it all involves the IR camera in the remote. As a matter of fact, his projects involve having the remote sitting still and having IR emitters moving around instead of vice versa.

He also says that it is difficult to get the software to translate motions reliably or accurately, and the accelerometers are inexpensive ones to begin with.

[Nero 99]

Motion sensing is a cool concept and I love Nintendo to death but god almighty i hope they go back to standard controllers. When I play a game I like to just sit back and enjoy it not wiggle my arms around like a jack ass!

[Jon R.]

The question is flawed, since the Wii itself has been a big indicator of just how muddled the term "hardcore" has become. There's what i'd consider the true hardcore, who seem to view it as just as viable as anything else, and then there's the "hardcore" who like Counter-Strike. Whereas it used to mean "enthusiast", it's become a description of those who simply seem to like the same thing over and over. I think it simply comes down to how long something's been around.

As for the implementation, both sides can come up with perfectly valid quibbles about it. Some games use the Wiimore poorly, but i don't see that as a specific sign of it being a gimmick. CastleVania's controls suck balls too, and that's now considered a classic. All throughout the history of gaming, developers have had problems creating controls that don't blow, and if they still sometimes have problems with implementing the current hardcore-preferred controllers, then i don't see how the sky is falling for the Wiimote.

Personally, i'm all for something that potentially allows more intuitive controls and more dynamic player actions. I'm pretty tired of it all coming down to the addition of more buttons which allow static, canned responses.

[mercarian]

Honestly, I've started gaming with the Nes. I've played games all my life, and never really got used to the Wii style controller. I find myself now using a gamecube controller to play many of the new games I get. First person shooters seem to be the most difficult games on the system. I never got the touch for the system. My uncles son however, is roughly 9 and plays fluently. Nintendo has always been about cool technologies that are different, not necessarily the "best" graphics. So will motion controllers be used in the future? I would suppose that Nintendo will continue to use them, I don't think that Sony will be around much longer and the Xbox line will probably continue to just become more advanced graphically. Then again, I doubt that I am the target market for Nintendo products (I'm in my early 20's). I actually like the touch system of the DS better then the Wii. Who knows, we'll have to wait another year before the new cycle of systems comes out, yet again O_o

[YoshiM]

The question is flawed, since the Wii itself has been a big indicator of just how muddled the term "hardcore" has become. There's what i'd consider the true hardcore, who seem to view it as just as viable as anything else, and then there's the "hardcore" who like Counter-Strike. Whereas it used to mean "enthusiast", it's become a description of those who simply seem to like the same thing over and over. I think it simply comes down to how long something's been around.

I guess "hardcore" is about the best description I can come up with. When a person who doesn't play video games often or at all sees another operate a 360 controller like they're ringing a bell, that word probably goes through their mind. Or something like "expert".

When formulating the question, I kinda thought about my parents. They got me into games with a Coleco Telstar Arcade and then rented games when they could when we won and Atari VCS. My Mom could play a good game of Circus Atari. When the NES came out, my Mom could play okay but my Dad couldn't handle the D-Pad and two buttons. Golf was about it for him. Playing games on systems after that: fugeddaboudit. Too many buttons.

As for the implementation, both sides can come up with perfectly valid quibbles about it. Some games use the Wiimore poorly, but i don't see that as a specific sign of it being a gimmick. CastleVania's controls suck balls too, and that's now considered a classic.

Never said it was a gimmick. That's another thread by someone else . And how does Castlevania's controls "suck balls"? It had the same interface as any other game of its genre and the only real issue with it was getting hit and falling backwards to certain doom. You press left, Simon went left. You hit the attack button, he threw his whip.

When comparing motion controls to button controls, you really can't compare it like you did ("some games use the Wiimote poorly...Castlevania controls suck balls too"). Using Castlevania as an example, if you hit the attack button with a flick of the thumb rather than a full on press, Simon wouldn't jump. He'd still attack or not at all if the flick wasn't hard enough. Playing a game like Marvel Ultimate Alliance on Wii you could flick the remote up for one move but the motion could be sensed as a sideways motion, invoking a different move. Apple and oranges.

All throughout the history of gaming, developers have had problems creating controls that don't blow, and if they still sometimes have problems with implementing the current hardcore-preferred controllers, then i don't see how the sky is falling for the Wiimote.

Again, I never dissed the Wiimote in this thread. I'm asking about people's views of the future, which I'll touch on after this next quote.

Personally, i'm all for something that potentially allows more intuitive controls and more dynamic player actions. I'm pretty tired of it all coming down to the addition of more buttons which allow static, canned responses.

Actually I think only one button was added this gen and that was the "hub" button on the 360 controller but it's only used for system menu functions or turning the system on or off so it's debatable whether it "counts" or not. Other than that we've had the same number of buttons since Playstation One.

What I was going for with the question is could motion controls, using history as a guideline, become to difficult for the non-gamer or "casual" gamer to play? Sure the concept of baseball is pretty simple: swing a bat to hit a ball. But actually DOING that is harder than it seems. Same thing with real bowling or golf. Instead of "more buttons", what if better more accurate accelerometers or gyroscopes are used in future motion controls, making it truly more "one to one" control? So if you suck at baseball in real life you will probably suck at in virtually too. That's what I'm wondering, will we see motion controls will reach the complexity of buttons are today?

[Jon R.]

I guess "hardcore" is about the best description I can come up with. When a person who doesn't play video games often or at all sees another operate a 360 controller like they're ringing a bell, that word probably goes through their mind. Or something like "expert".

When formulating the question, I kinda thought about my parents. They got me into games with a Coleco Telstar Arcade and then rented games when they could when we won and Atari VCS. My Mom could play a good game of Circus Atari. When the NES came out, my Mom could play okay but my Dad couldn't handle the D-Pad and two buttons. Golf was about it for him. Playing games on systems after that: fugeddaboudit. Too many buttons.

I think this is where things might be able to turn the corner. Some people may also end up having trouble getting used to motion controls, but i'd imagine it to be more to do with the implementation. Motion can potentially be intuitive, while the previous controllers have always had that layer of abstraction since things were always arbitrarily assigned to a button.

Never said it was a gimmick. That's another thread by someone else . And how does Castlevania's controls "suck balls"? It had the same interface as any other game of its genre and the only real issue with it was getting hit and falling backwards to certain doom. You press left, Simon went left. You hit the attack button, he threw his whip.

You jump, you hope a medusa head doesn't come out because there isn't shit you can do about it. It did have the same interface as many other games, but Simon still handles like a brick. Add the ability to change directions in the air and 8-way whipping, you get the superior controls of CV4. Same basic interface, but one implementation sucks and the other doesn't. SoTN has the most fluid controls of all, and is the most natural-feeling to play.

Point being, there have always been games with crappy controls regardless of the input method. That's something that won't change.

When comparing motion controls to button controls, you really can't compare it like you did ("some games use the Wiimote poorly...Castlevania controls suck balls too"). Using Castlevania as an example, if you hit the attack button with a flick of the thumb rather than a full on press, Simon wouldn't jump. He'd still attack or not at all if the flick wasn't hard enough. Playing a game like Marvel Ultimate Alliance on Wii you could flick the remote up for one move but the motion could be sensed as a sideways motion, invoking a different move. Apple and oranges.

I didn't get this. Using CV as an example with motion, or conventional pad? And the other example is the Wiimote mistaking one motion for another?

Actually I think only one button was added this gen and that was the "hub" button on the 360 controller but it's only used for system menu functions or turning the system on or off so it's debatable whether it "counts" or not. Other than that we've had the same number of buttons since Playstation One.

What I was going for with the question is could motion controls, using history as a guideline, become to difficult for the non-gamer or "casual" gamer to play? Sure the concept of baseball is pretty simple: swing a bat to hit a ball. But actually DOING that is harder than it seems. Same thing with real bowling or golf. Instead of "more buttons", what if better more accurate accelerometers or gyroscopes are used in future motion controls, making it truly more "one to one" control? So if you suck at baseball in real life you will probably suck at in virtually too. That's what I'm wondering, will we see motion controls will reach the complexity of buttons are today?

Sure, if developers are as dumb then as they are now. Realism for realism's sake would screw it all up much in the same way it does now, more accurate hardware wouldn't be the cause of it. Some moron's still going to have to think "Hey, what about a game where we make a completely average person attempt to hit a 90 MPH fastball without being able to even see the point of contact?" before more accurate sensors could be used to actually make a game that stupid.

If there's going to be the sort of learning curve as with controllers, i don't know. If developers start using a bunch of arbitrary motions for actions, it's going to create a layer of abstraction similar to the one with buttoned controllers. If they don't, probably not.

[YoshiM]

I know you can't respond right now but I'll still answer these if anyone is of the same frame of mind:

I think this is where things might be able to turn the corner. Some people may also end up having trouble getting used to motion controls, but i'd imagine it to be more to do with the implementation. Motion can potentially be intuitive, while the previous controllers have always had that layer of abstraction since things were always arbitrarily assigned to a button.

How is having to push a button abstract? You push this button, this action happens. It only started difficult when there were combinations of buttons followed by more buttons with more combinations. Motion can be just as abstract. See also the baseball bat scenario or better yet a golf club. Anyone can swing a golf ball and maybe hit a ball. Getting the ball to go in the general direction you want is another matter. There's stance, arm motion, how the club is positioned on the downswing as opposed to how it is when the ball gets hit, etc.

I didn't get this. Using CV as an example with motion, or conventional pad? And the other example is the Wiimote mistaking one motion for another?

Conventional pad. You said its controls sucked balls and in the same paragraph talked about games that used the Wiimote controls poorly, meaning the game itself controlled poorly. I said you can't compare control pad with motion control. CV played exactly the way you told it to. Simon handles like a brick but the control method worked fine. There's a difference.

Sure, if developers are as dumb then as they are now. Realism for realism's sake would screw it all up much in the same way it does now, more accurate hardware wouldn't be the cause of it. Some moron's still going to have to think "Hey, what about a game where we make a completely average person attempt to hit a 90 MPH fastball without being able to even see the point of contact?" before more accurate sensors could be used to actually make a game that stupid.

It's still a complete package, though. The ball does rest in the developer's court but the hardware has to be there too. Then there's the user base and the question of "how far should we go with this game"? If a developer takes the chance and makes a sports game that does have more 1-to-1 realistic controls and it becomes popular, you know others will jump on the bandwagon.

If there's going to be the sort of learning curve as with controllers, i don't know. If developers start using a bunch of arbitrary motions for actions, it's going to create a layer of abstraction similar to the one with buttoned controllers. If they don't, probably not.

There already is a learning curve with motion controls now just as there were learning curves with controllers. Sure the action of using a racket or bowling a ball is familiar but figuring out how to use that knowledge in the parameters of the game is the curve. It all boils down to how much the player wants to practice to "make perfect". If we dial back to 1986 when the NES was available everywhere, the one button Atari player had to learn how to use a pad and if they wanted to follow the generations had to learn the nuance of each new controller to obtain the same level of prowess as the previous game generation.

[calthaer]

I believe that what will happen is that, in the future, people will control games with their minds. Then Michael J Fox will go to that future, show some kids how to use a gamepad or Wii controller, and they'll say: "You have to use your hands? That's like a baby's toy."

In all seriousness, I think that the Wiimote is far more intuitive for the vast majority of the population who do not possess the hand-eye coordination to excel at using a gamepad. I can't see it really going away or becoming less popular. There will always be the elite who have the capacity to deal with more technically challenging interfaces, but it will be more niche - in the same way that those who like deep, complex RTS games are a niche today within the greater context of the gaming public.

[lendelin]

Never said it was a gimmick. That's another thread by someone else

WHO? Who had the audacity to call the Wii remote a marketing gimmick? I say stone and crucify him!

Again, I never dissed the Wiimote in this thread. I'm asking about people's views of the future, which I'll touch on after this next quote.

Dan, get used to some exaggerated responses from guys who really want you in an opinion corner you actually are not in.

[lendelin]

There already is a learning curve with motion controls now just as there were learning curves with controllers. Sure the action of using a racket or bowling a ball is familiar but figuring out how to use that knowledge in the parameters of the game is the curve. It all boils down to how much the player wants to practice to "make perfect". If we dial back to 1986 when the NES was available everywhere, the one button Atari player had to learn how to use a pad and if they wanted to follow the generations had to learn the nuance of each new controller to obtain the same level of prowess as the previous game generation.

You addressed a really interesting issue. The question if refinement of controls (=refinement in gameplay) and attach rate to games is a zero sum game is a puzzling one; and it is really a hot one when it comes to motion sensing and the Wii remote.

We (me included) say very often that the golden rule of game developers should be 'easy to pick up and difficult to master,' that means easily understandable controls and rich gameplay. But that is very easy to say, and moreover the question is if gamers stick with the game when it gets refined, complicated, and requires practice to master.

The rules of GO can be picked up by everyone in thirty seconds, but everyone who tried to play the game knows that it is as difficult and complicated as chess that has much more complicated rules. How many gamers stick with GO and try to master the game? How many play it just once in awhile for fun? and with whom? How many are actually discouraged to play the game by its complexities despite its instant accessability?

The Wii remote has an incredible instant accessabilty. It surprised everyone, and I bet some MS executives who misperceived the appeal of the Wii remote (among other factors like family situations and game concepts) and in particular some Sony executives who didn't push enough for the Eye Toy feel very uncomfortable now.

I lamented very often that the Wii remote has limited gameplay, that means it is just sub-par when it comes to more refined motion sensing; that means you hit with this technology soon a barrier which doesn't allow you to go further in gameplay (like in Mario Tennis for the GC and the games In Wii Sports compared to Top Spin and Table Tennis).

BUT this limitation might be actually ideal for a wide appeal of motion sensing beyond the usual game crowd. If motion sensing will get refined just a couple of degrees further in the next ten years (by no means 'realistic' or 100% 1:1 translation of motions) just so gameplay needs practice and the success in a game comes with a learning curve, THEN its widespread appeal for non-gamers and very casual gamers might decline.

Limitation in motion sensing technology also means limitation in gameplay which in return means leveling the playing field for gamers with different skills. This is a concept that party games and Mario Power Tennis and Wii Sports and Wii Play follow for some time now. Each gamer has a better chance of winning, this is ideal for multi-player games and it makes the short games more fun for everyone; more importantly, it is ideal for games for the entire family.

I indeed think that the refinement in gameplay and attach rates to games is a zero-sum-game. However, even refined motion sensing will certainly decrease the hurdle to get into gaming in the first place. It is much more intuitive and therefore much more accessible than the standard controls.

On the other hand, noone of us knows how motion sensing might look in ten years from now, or if another technology dominates to replace our standard controls.

Maybe game designers find ways to circumvent 'realistic' and difficult to master gameplay elements with refined motion sensing? In other words they might be able to find the right balance between intutive controls and rich gameplay that includes as many gamers as possible? This will depend a lot on the technologhy in ten years from now we just have no clue about.

To make the same games playable and appealing for a very wide range of gamers with very different skills is anyway for me one of the great achievements of game designers since the beginning of videogames. Often overlooked, but still amazing.

One thing is for sure, the success of the Wii remote was a wake up call for the game industry to look for alternative control schemes.

But no matter which control scheme will be used ten years from now, our standard controls or motion sensing or another technology, games can never be 'realistic.' It would be the end of games. We play games because they aren't realistic and because they give us the illusion of some aspects of realism married with a fantasy world. Mario Kart Double Dash is as realistic as Gran Turismo 4.

Realism is boring, tedious, full of routine, sluggish, and to master skills in real life is incremental and very hard work that isn't over in a week. Playing soccer, playing tennis, football, rugby, baseball, even flying air planes in MS Flight Simulator, all these activities in games have to find the balance between the fun factor and the terrible boring realism factor. That might be true even for hunting and killing twenty feet tall demons, one of my favorite sports. And war games are only successful because they are fun to master like Tetris and completely ignore the actual tragedies and terrible brutalities of real war.

[Cloud121]

I just briefly skimmed the thread before posting, but I just wanted to chime in real quick with my thoughts.

In regards to motion controls, I feel as though Sony's way is the way to go. Keep a traditional gamepad, but include the motion sensor inside. I see Microsoft going the same route as Sony on their next console. You may not be able to use the SIXAXIS in the exact same way as the Wii remote, but you can still use it as a baseball bat, basketball, steering wheel (ala Excite Truck). Granted, it won't be awhile until developers get the hang out everything, but they will in due time. Of course, the difference between Sony and Nintendo is that Sony's not making anyone using the SIXAXIS function, whereas you have to do it while developing for Wii.

Though I gotta admit, it'd kinda funny seeing more and more games with GameCube support.

[catalyst_nc]

You know, I think Nintendo has had so much success with the Wii because it's so easy to pick up and play. Plus the, "cool," factor too.

I remember Blizzard and id Software back in the day saying that they like to keep their games easy to pick up, but difficult to master.

It's just the balance of making your games intuitive, but still keeping the depth in the process.

I think most of the Wii games do a good job of being intuitive, but too many of them lack in the depth department.

There's some great games on the system, but they all seem to be made by Nintendo, a company that, "gets it."

I think if the Wii debuted as a, "hardcore gamers system," it wouldn't have near the mass appeal as it does today.

[kedawa]

Video game controls achieved perfection with the japanese saturn pad.