Quote Originally Posted by Jon R. View Post
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?