General Modern Motion Controls, What Happened?

[JuicieJ]

In this case though, he doesn't seem to be arguing about the accuracy, but more so the position he has to hold the control to make it accurate.

He explicitly said that he shouldn't have to recalibrate the controls after making a swing, though.

And even if that's what he's on about, there's no reason he should have to hold the Wii Remote in some weird position. All you have to do is point it at the TV screen.

 

[Jamie]

Skyward's Swords controls do work fine, but there is a lot of room for error. That is a flaw, sorry. Minimizing human error should be the goal of a control scheme, so everyone can play. I shouldn't need to watch videos to know how to use my controller. Everything has flaws, to say the wiimotion+ is flawless is really silly.

 

[JuicieJ]

Skyward's Swords controls do work fine, but there is a lot of room for error. That is a flaw, sorry. Minimizing human error should be the goal of a control scheme, so everyone can play. I shouldn't need to watch videos to know how to use my controller. Everything has flaws, to say the wiimotion+ is flawless is really silly.

Except they function without issue. Room for error has nothing to do with the tech of the WM+ or SS's control scheme, just with how good the player is with accuracy. So, no, that's not a flaw in design. You might as well be arguing that the possibility of pressing an incorrect button is a design flaw in standard control schemes.

There's also a considerable amount of room for error with the controls being mapped to 8 cardinal directions. Nintendo easily could have required borderline 100% precision out of players, but they didn't because they're not blind to the fact that it would be a stupid design choice. They hit a sweet spot between the controls being accessible and requiring a level of skill by designing the game the way they did -- and that's not even mentioning that you only have to make short, relatively light swings to attack with the sword.

Now, of course, the controls could still be made more intuitive, but that has to do with them not being perfect, as nothing is -- again, there's a difference between flawless and perfect. Were they perfect, they would have no possible way of being improved, meaning there's not a single thing more that could be done with them, including making them more advanced, and I've never argued such a thing. All I ever said was that they function flawlessly and that any issue is due to human error.

 

[Random Person]

Well, I've come into this convo rather late.

I believe it to be a misconception. With simpler games like Wii sports, people saw the potential motion controls could have for games let alone full motion controls (not to mention the constant possibility of virtual reality that everyone is waiting for). Video games allow people to leave reality and enter another where they can be someone else. Motion controls, from afar, seemed like it would make this experience better as many would love to swing a sword. But then the execution happened. SS's controls weren't perfect, and even if they were perfect, they offered less of an experience than what people had with buttons. (nine different directions with two special swings compared to a variety of movesets from TP and WW) While some rather enjoyed the experience, others viewed them as a waiting games and couldn't really get immersed like they could with buttons. As someone else stated, motion controls simply did not provide the overall improvement that people thought they would. So if motion controls make things more complicated, but less fun, then we may as well go back to buttons.

One other concept I'd like to bring up is how SS handled combining motion controls with the "Zelda experience." We've seen gimicks before with PH, ST and such, but, atleast imo, those were gimmicks wrapped around a Zelda game, not the other way around. SS used motion controls every second it got while not providing a "innovative experience." I never had to figure out how to make motion controls work to my advantage, rather I just needed to know how motion controls worked. When your game takes every opportunity possible to show you its new concenpt, but it doesn't take that concept further than just using it, you're going to get tired of the concept. A counter example would be how the duo screen in PH was used to copy the mark from one map to another. It's gimmicky, but its making you use the gimmick in ways you wouldn't expect.

I still think motion controls could work. Going by pure experience, I had the most fun playing Twilight Princess where the buttons and motion controls were both a full experience. When it boils down to my Personal feelings, I just think SS messed up the opportunity. If full motion controls are given another try, and done right, it could really change how we view gaming for the better.

 

[Évariste]

As someone who might be perceived as defending Skyward Sword's design for controls, I do not think the flicking motions in Twilight Princess (or Super Mario Galaxy?) are a worse implementation of motion controls. They allow for another control dimension, so that you may only need 8 buttons on a controller instead of 9 or 10.

It's funny, though. Aonuma actually wanted Skyward Sword to be more like this new Zelda in terms of open-ended exploration, but the team wound up not being able to do that, and I'm willing to bet that it was because of the Wii MotionPlus. I don't blame this on the developers or the tech, though -- I blame it on the fact that Nintendo didn't launch the Wii WITH the WM+ tech. Had they done that, Aonuma and crew would have been much more familiar with it, and therefore would have been able to construct the game he wanted.

Regardless, he's finally able to try and recapture the spirit of the older games, and he's also out on a mission to break away from Zelda's normal conventions, so I'm sure we'll see the kind of things you're asking for -- even if the WM+ returns (which I think it will), as they've already gotten the hang of that with the release of SS.

This assumes that there is no further innovative development for WM+ developed in Skyward Sword. If it is possible to do more with Skyward Sword's way of motion controls for innovation's sake, then the Zelda team could theoretically be thinking about new ways to implement the WM+ controls. As I said earlier, I don't believe that that's what they're thinking about as not even Nintendo seems to support motion controls as much as they did with the Wii...so yes, I do think Aonuma et al are considering new ideas for Zelda that I would like to see developed.

That said, I really do wish I could believe there is more serious development for a game that utilizes WM+ similarly to Skyward Sword. I don't believe Skyward Sword represents a pinnacle for WM+ (note I said SS's controls are already well done). It might have to be under a different team or IP in order for it to be developed alongside new Zelda games. Granted, new IP's are tough to put out...easier to just say that it's Zelda or Starfox. In any case, I think that would be great if Nintendo goes back to motion controls being a main selling point.

 

[Jamie]

Except they function without issue. Room for error has nothing to do with the tech of the WM+ or SS's control scheme, just with how good the player is with accuracy. So, no, that's not a flaw in design. You might as well be arguing that the possibility of pressing an incorrect button is a design flaw in standard control schemes.

It is a flaw in design. Yes, the possibility of pressing an incorrect button is a design flaw, too. As long as the game does not do exactly what we want it to do within the realm of possibilities within the game there is some flaw somewhere. The perfect control scheme would be controlled by thought I suppose, but even that has flaws as you could get distracted. I am arguing that every control scheme has flaws. Room for error is an issue. What if you had to slice with exact accuracy to a tenth of a degree, would you still argue this was not a design flaw?

Saying the WM+ is flawless is beyond silly. That would imply that it can't be improved.
And sorry, flawless and perfect mean the exact same thing. Stop trying to tiptoe around that.

 

[JuicieJ]

It is a flaw in design. Yes, the possibility of pressing an incorrect button is a design flaw, too. As long as the game does not do exactly what we want it to do within the realm of possibilities within the game there is some flaw somewhere.

"This game did something different than I wanted it to because I messed up, causing it to perform the action that I input regardless of whether or not it's what I had in mind. Therefore it's the game's fault, not mine."

I'll just leave that as it is.

Saying the WM+ is flawless is beyond silly. That would imply that it can't be improved.
And sorry, flawless and perfect mean the exact same thing. Stop trying to tiptoe around that.

No they don't, and I explained why. If you can't realize that they're synonyms, then I don't know what to say.

 

[Farore's Chosen]

http://www.gamefaqs.com/wii/960633-the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword/reviews/review-148993

this little review, its not mine btw says alot

 

[JuicieJ]

http://www.gamefaqs.com/wii/960633-the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword/reviews/review-148993

this little review, its not mine btw says alot

Controls are supposed to be a central mechanic -- they're how you interact with the game design. If you think the WM+ is gimmicky & immersion-breaking because it was used the way it was supposed to (and in intelligent ways, no less), that's your problem.

 

[Jamie]

"This game did something different than I wanted it to because I messed up, causing it to perform the action that I input regardless of whether or not it's what I had in mind. Therefore it's the game's fault, not mine."

I'll just leave that as it is.

Sorry but when you use quotation marks you are supposed to actually quote someone. I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. I said having a chance to not work exactly as the user intended is a flaw. I never said the players aren't at fault (or at least, mostly at fault). A wider margin for error is something the designers need to account for. What if to draw the sword, I had to type in a precise button combination, including holding the buttons for a certain length of time (to exact milliseconds), and if I couldn't pull it off, I could never draw my sword. If I do it exactly how I'm supposed to which is nearly impossible, it will preform perfectly every single time. This isn't a design flaw just because it works if the player does everything perfectly? I'm not saying the actual WM+ is broken or something, I'm saying it, and Skyward Sword, are flawed and could be improved immensely. Just like a flaw in say, Phantom Hourglass is the boat. The boat works perfectly, there's no error or glitch, but it's designed poorly (in some people's opinions), and is a design flaw. How is this so difficult to wrap your head around?

No they don't, and I explained why. If you can't realize that they're synonyms, then I don't know what to say.

What is the difference between flawless and perfect? Synonyms can be identical, you know. Not all synonyms are different. Synonym definition: A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close:


The definition of flaw by Merriam webster:
b : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness
Oh, an imperfection?
Flawless:
being entirely without fault or flaw

Without flaw... So without imperfections.

What's something without imperfections? I think you know the answer to that.

Oh, by the way, here's the definition of perfect according to Merriam webster:
being entirely without fault or flaw

Notice anything similar to a previous definition?

Also, the semicolon in the definition does not mean it is a synonym(well, it does, but that's not all it means), meaning it could only have "nearly" the same meaning, which isn't the same as similar by the way, so you are wrong about that, too. The semicolon means it has the EXACT same meaning. Because the "; perfect" is part of the definition. There is a list of synonyms below. If it's part of the definition, that is the definition. Go read the dictionary and stop coming up with your own drivel.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder why I bother with you. You wouldn't admit you were wrong no matter what. Proven by the time you called my "smarticle" and said I should get a degree in "smartology" when I proved you wrong, instead of just being mature and admitting it. How the hell are you 21 years old again? Grow up.

 

[JuicieJ]

Sorry but when you use quotation marks you are supposed to actually quote someone.

Except that's what the quote feature is for here. The quotation marks were used to state the basis of what you said.

I didn't say that, nor did I imply it.

Even if you didn't intend it, the way you worded it absolutely implied it.

I said having a chance to not work exactly as the user intended is a flaw. I never said the players aren't at fault (or at least, mostly at fault). A wider margin for error is something the designers need to account for.

1) You're claiming that a factor outside of a control scheme is a flaw of said control scheme. That makes literally no sense whatsoever.

2) I already went over how SS's WM+ allows for a wide margin of error with its 8 cardinal direction mapping.

What if to draw the sword, I had to type in a precise button combination, including holding the buttons for a certain length of time (to exact milliseconds), and if I couldn't pull it off, I could never draw my sword. If I do it exactly how I'm supposed to which is nearly impossible, it will preform perfectly every single time. This isn't a design flaw just because it works if the player does everything perfectly?

That wouldn't be a FLAW in the CONTROLS, that would be an overly-frustrating game mechanic -- two things of which are nothing alike. (A recurring pattern with your arguments, by the way.)

Just like a flaw in say, Phantom Hourglass is the boat. The boat works perfectly, there's no error or glitch, but it's designed poorly (in some people's opinions), and is a design flaw. How is this so difficult to wrap your head around?

You're comparing the functionality of an in-game object to the possibility of human error. ...Do you realize how asinine that is?

What is the difference between flawless and perfect? Synonyms can be identical, you know. Not all synonyms are different. Synonym definition: A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close:


The definition of flaw by Merriam webster:
b : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness
Oh, an imperfection?
Flawless:
being entirely without fault or flaw

Without flaw... So without imperfections.

What's something without imperfections? I think you know the answer to that.

Oh, by the way, here's the definition of perfect according to Merriam webster:
being entirely without fault or flaw

Notice anything similar to a previous definition?

There are multiple sources you can pool definitions from, each with varying results, and I already put up my own post regarding the definitions. We could go back and forth with this, which means neither of us would ever win. I think that's something we're just going to both have to accept. I already have. Will you?

Honestly, sometimes I wonder why I bother with you. You wouldn't admit you were wrong no matter what. Proven by the time you called my "smarticle" and said I should get a degree in "smartology" when I proved you wrong, instead of just being mature and admitting it. How the hell are you 21 years old again? Grow up.

I love how you're flat-out ignoring the multiple instances where I HAVE admitted I'm wrong. I also love how you, along with everyone else, always continuously argue your own standpoints, believing you're right, because *gasp* people naturally believe they're right about things. I know, shocking, isn't it?

So how about you hop down off your high horse and accept the fact that you're being no different than you say I am.

 

[Jamie]

Not dealing with with your motion control crap. It's simply not worth it. I will say however that the M+ clearly does have flaws, as per my definition of flawless below (i.e. it's not perfect)

There are multiple sources you can pool definitions from, each with varying results, and I already put up my own post regarding the definitions. We could go back and forth with this, which means neither of us would ever win. I think that's something we're just going to both have to accept. I already have. Will you?

No, do you know why? Because I am using better sources than you. Actually, have you used any sources at all? Perhaps I missed it but please find your definition in a real dictionary. Not your opinion.
Merriam Webster and maybe Oxford are the authorities on the english language effectively. Merriam Webster proved me right. Now time for Oxford.
Flawless on oxford:
Without any imperfections or defects; perfect:
And yeah, the perfect is part of the definition, so it means the exact same thing. But for your amusement

Perfect on oxford:
Free from any flaw or defect in condition or quality; faultless:

What dictionary are you finding that is actually countering this definition? Again as I said I've yet to see one.

Dictionary.com flawless:
having no defects or faults, especially none that diminish the value of something:
Dictionary.com flaw:
an imperfection, defect, or blemish (I think we can extrapolate that flawless means without flaw, right?)

Dictionary.com perfect:
entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings:

Can you really tell me you are right here? Really?

I love how you're flat-out ignoring the multiple instances where I HAVE admitted I'm wrong. I also love how you, along with everyone else, always continuously argue your own standpoints, believing your right, because *gasp* people naturally believe they're right about things. I know, shocking, isn't it?

So you admit you were being hilariously immature with your smarticle comment, and DIDN'T admit you were wrong there, even though you were?

So how about you hop down off your high horse and accept the fact that you're being no different than you say I am.

No, I usually admit when I'm wrong.


Are you going to admit you are wrong here or just call me smarticle again?

 

[JuicieJ]

Not dealing with with your motion control crap. It's simply not worth it. I will say however that the M+ clearly does have flaws, as per my definition of flawless below (i.e. it's not perfect)

So you're not going to address the blatant fallacies I addressed? Dude, it's right there, you're drawing comparisons between things that have absolutely no relation to make your points.

Okay, you know what? Fine. In that case, I'll return the favor and ignore everything you had to say about definitions. Seems fitting. Only I'll go a step further and reiterate the initial thing I said regarding the word "flawless", which is that the WM+ functions flawlessly. That's the key thing, here, and it's all I was ever originally going on about. Then it devolved into all this bull**** (which we're both to blame for).

So you admit you were being hilariously immature with your smarticle comment, and DIDN'T admit you were wrong there, even though you were?

Are you going to admit you are wrong here or just call me smarticle again?

So you yet again ignore what I actually said? I shouldn't be surprised at this point.

Also, you have letting go issues, don't you?

No, I usually admit when I'm wrong

I've yet to see you do it -- including now. (I guess "usually" is a good keyword.)

 

[Jamie]

So you're not going to address the blatant fallacies I addressed? Dude, it's right there, you're drawing comparisons between things that have absolutely no relation to make your points.

Okay, you know what? Fine. In that case, I'll return the favor and ignore everything you had to say about definitions. Seems fitting. Only I'll go a step further and reiterate the initial thing I said regarding the word "flawless", which is that the WM+ functions flawlessly. That's the key thing, here, and it's all I was ever originally going on about. Then it devolved into all this bull**** (which we're both to blame for).

I don't need to address the "fallacies" because my ultimate point was that there were flaws in the control scheme. Meaning they could be improved. Whether I was wrong about little details or not is kind of irrelevant if I'm right in the big picture. But sure, I'll admit the button combo example didn't really do me any justice.

"Skyward's Swords controls do work fine, but there is a lot of room for error. That is a flaw, sorry. Minimizing human error should be the goal of a control scheme, so everyone can play. "
That was my original statement. I never said anything about the functions. The controls do function flawlessly based on how they are supposed to given a perfect environment. Unfortunately, a perfect environment is not always there (remember that e3?).

Also, you have letting go issues, don't you?

Sometimes.

I've yet to see you do it -- including now. (I guess "usually" is a good keyword.)

ok

 

[JuicieJ]

I don't need to address the "fallacies" because my ultimate point was that there were flaws in the control scheme. Meaning they could be improved. Whether I was wrong about little details or not is kind of irrelevant if I'm right in the big picture. But sure, I'll admit the button combo example didn't really do me any justice.

"Skyward's Swords controls do work fine, but there is a lot of room for error. That is a flaw, sorry. Minimizing human error should be the goal of a control scheme, so everyone can play. "
That was my original statement. I never said anything about the functions. The controls do function flawlessly based on how they are supposed to given a perfect environment. Unfortunately, a perfect environment is not always there (remember that e3?).

I still vehemently disagree that a margin for error is a flaw within every single control scheme, because that's on the player, not the controls. However, I should point out that we actually DO agree on something: the WM+ can be improved. Our trains of thought may vary regarding "flawless vs. perfect", but they lead to the same place, so I think we should leave off remembering that.