The Pitfalls of Motion Control *Spin-Off

That's all well and good, but motion controls don't translate into many genres. Racing games? Flight simulations? What about real-time strategy? There are genres where I'm simply not a human performing human motions.

I do get the "mastering the controls" aspect - that happens in the hardcore flight simulation games, where many gamers essentially build replica cockpits and are forced to master a complex game - but I'm not sure that everyone seeks that. Players looking to Lair were expecting to have fun riding the dragons, and I can't imagine "mastering the controls" could really be equated to struggling with the controller like it was a piece of sports equipment, at least in their minds.

Of course, you drove at that same point yourself - player perception - but I simply don't know that this needs to change in videogames. My personal belief is that motion controls can be conveniently employed in something like a console RTS (with the Wii's pointer acting as a mouse) or on a PS3 title controlling a human for things like strafing or leaning. When they're overused, or arbitrarily forced on players in a scenario where a joystick would have worked just as well, it takes away from the game.

At the very least, traditional controls should be an option in the menu of these types of games.

 

Don't guess. Play to find out. I think Arwin plays MotorStorm with SIXAXIS, Crayon play F1 with SIXAXIS, many people fly Warhawk and Lair with SIXAXIS too.

RTS is best played with a mouse, which is a motion controlled device.

Sure !

 

If the motion controls of sixaxis and the wiimote were anywhere near as precise and reliable as a mouse, this thread would not exist.

 

I'll have to try it some day if/when Sony enables SIXAXIS support in XMB or the web browser. SIXAXIS with flOw and Lair (when it's not buggy) is pretty good now.

 

Technically Patsu, all control inputs are motion controlled - unless you've got electrodes attached to your skull. Comparing a gyroscopic sensor to a high-resolution optical sensor is likely not fair though... and I would certainly argue I have an easier time sliding a plastic mouse across a piece of cloth smoothly than tilting a controller.

Is it a personal bias? Most definitely - but in choosing between pressing "A" and "D" to strafe (or perhaps L2 and R2) and tilting a controller, I'll take the digital button press nine times out of ten. I trust the reliability of a button press over a developer's ability to properly implement motion controls.

I am, by no means, an expert on the sensor devices that drive the Wii and PS3 motion controls. I'm aware of how they function, but as far as sensitivity, I can only go by what I feel. In some games, they work fine, but in others I've found them no better than pressing buttons - and in scenarios that call for them to be precise, I've felt they're lacking.

Of course, there's always the point that controls shouldn't be precise, but I'm not of the belief I should have to be perfectly able to replicate a motion in real life to be able to utilize it in a virtual life. Maybe it's stubbornness, though I'd take offense to the term neo-luddite, I'm not opposed to change in that way.

I remember the early days of motion controls as a child, both in arcades, and in clumsily implemented home machines. I've never felt they were the future of gaming, or even needed - much like the chintzy touchscreen keyboards appearing on some phones, it never made sense to me to trade predictability and precision out for something new just to try it. I've never liked the idea of an input being a gamble.

 

I'm not agreeing with the human motions thing ... It's not important. What is important is that motion controls offer additional forms of input. Some of them are going to be less exact than a button press, but others of them are more exact. Take the tilt sensors. You can use these while using the analog sticks. Especially in a realtime strategy sim I can easily think of a lot of ways to use motion controls, because you can always use more controls there. I would use motion controls to scroll the map for instance, use the left analog stick to move across the map directly (without selecting a map first), use the right analog stick to expand or decrease my selection cursor, and so on. Just giving examples, the optimum configuration may vary. But tilt is very precise, much easier to be precise with in fact than with an analog stick. (I'm getting the impression that the Loco Roco screensaver might show this to us next week, but I'm not sure - depends on how you control that butterfly, but right now I'm guessing using tilt)

That's the thing though. It's typically gamers who have taken some considerable time mastered the analog sticks who complain about this, even though we had the exact same thing back when the d-pad got company from the analog stick for the first time. Just not everyone got it back then. And it's not always the best way, say for fighting games.

Yes. The main issue then seems to be to offer the choice of configuring your controls. This is something that Factor 5 should take at heart. If the motion controls work, then make them default, but allow the option to change back to analog. Then maybe show in the high-scores which control system was used, and you'll have a natural selection mechanism that tells you what works best.

In that aspect we very much agree it seems.

 

If this is the case, we are talking about the pitfalls of all the mainstream controllers. I think the OP is refering to "motion sensing controls" like SIXAXIS.

SIXAXIS can detect tilt and translational acceleration along 3 axes, not just tilt. So it should be able to mimic mouse movement (on a table) to provide "direct manipulation" of on-screen objects. The problem is the SIXAXIS shape may get in the way. It is also unclear whether it will be precise enough for acting on small areas.

Nonetheless, its use allows a user to directly manipulate objects presented to them, using actions that correspond at least loosely to the physical world.

A joystick/analog stick/d-pad provides a less direct action compared to a typical motion sensing device like SIXAXIS, Wii and mouse.

 

I think you make a very valid point there. For many, the point of a traditional game is that it makes being an NFL quarterback or martial arts master as easy as pressing a button. Just press the right buttons at the right time, and you'll be pulling off moves you could only dream of in real life. Any non-digital controls require a great deal more physical control. I'm much less consistent executing haymakers in Fight Night than I was with Street Fighter II combos. Mario's harder to control with precision in Mario 64 than he was in Super Mario World. I definitely had a tough time moving from keyboard-only movement in Doom to K&M controls in Half-Life. Motion controlled games aren't like button-press games. And remember, Wii does have an analog stick, a + pad, and 4 easily accessible buttons in addition to the motion controls. That's not quite a Dual Shock, but it's about as much as you had with SNES.

 

It's got 6 easily accessible buttons if you count the '+' and '-' buttons. 1 and 2 are not really convenient, but 1 isn't too bad.

Fight Night is a weird example, because it's what attracted me to the game, and made the game so interesting for me. I hear there are a lot of people that play with the buttons, but I think it kind of ruins the experience.

I don't think there is a right or wrong to motion controls. Obviously it has its pluses and minuses, but mostly it comes down to a matter of personal preference.