DarkestLink
Darkest of all Dark Links
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
...You just destroyed your own argument right here.
Motion Gaming. Yay or Nay?
- Thread starter Burning Beast
- Start date
...You just destroyed your own argument right here.
JuicieJ
SHOW ME YA MOVES!
I'm dying to see why.
DarkestLink
Darkest of all Dark Links
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
You have proven yourself wrong by pointing out that obvious fact that we once had to adapt to our original controls. If this was really an issue of adapting to controls, gamers wouldn't love the button controls anymore than the Motion Gaming because both require adaptation. In fact, if these people did have issues with adaptation, they would have never become gamers to begin with and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Another note, my nephew is 7 and, as such, has grown up with motion controls. I introduced him to his Wii's backwards compadibility while he saves up for a Wii U. And while he does occasionally shake his gamecube controller, he has little issue adapting to it. With that in mind, I think our standard control scheme is easier to adapt and get into, whereas to motion controls feels a good deal more awkward unless you're the type to replay things and practice at it.
Random Person
Just Some Random Person
Preference with "you're entitled to your opinion" NOW I CAN'T GET IN TROUBLE!
I recently replayed the beginning of TP and to my surprise, there is noticeable strategy on what type of swing you want to do. You don't just wag the Wii-mote. Depending on what you press (or don't press) while wagging does different things. How many times have you accidently stabbed when trying to slice? That's because if you hold the analog while attacking, it creates a stab motion. There are different mechanics to create different swings, even in the basic sword skills of TP. I believe the confusion lies here... TP's enemies that required a sword didn't require too much strategy. If they could be defeated by a sword, you didn't have to worry about exactly how they could be defeated. Whatever way you swung, it would hit them. Whereas SS enemies forced you to swing certain ways, making you take more notice of which way you were swinging. Thus SS would punish you for using wrong sword technqiues, and TP wouldn't making it seem like the techniques weren't there.
Imo TP was the next step in controls. As I said in my post, it made the controls feel natural. SS technically had "better motion controls," it's just that rather than feeling that motion plus controls were apart of SS, it feels like SS is apart of motion plus controls.
JuicieJ
SHOW ME YA MOVES!
The difference is people that are now used to "standard" controls were getting into gaming for the first time when they learned the ropes. It was a learning experience, and it was really something to behold as a kid. Years later, something comes along that they're not used to (motion controls) and they dismiss it because of that. It's out of their comfort zone. I don't see how you missed that message in my post. It was insanely obvious.
Motion controls are definitely more difficult to adapt to, as they require more input. That doesn't mean there's no adaptation involved with "standard" controls. Even if you get the hang of them quickly, you're not going to master them without practice. That's just a given. Same thing with motion controls, and, again, since many gamers weren't used to them, having trouble with them turned them off instantly. Which is childish.
This is exactly why you can just get away with waggling in TP. There's never any threat, never any worry. You'll literally kill everything in your path by just flailing. There's no strategy to that, and...
...it's certainly not natural. It's glorified button-mashing. It's very clear that TP was designed for the GCN and not the Wii as a result.
They co-exist with each other. Neither is a part of the other. They just... are. As with every Zelda game.
Last edited:
Burning Beast
Go to Hell 4 Heavens Sake
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2012
- Location
- Zelda Dungeon
Um... okay so maybe there is a little strategy, but is that even needed? I can kill basically anything in TP by wagging my remote (randomly) in any direction I want. Meanwhile, in SS you have to put thought into what you are going to do. To me SS feels a lot more natural. I get annoyed every time I go to kill a monster in TP and swing my sword down vertically and he (Link) swings horizontally. :wrong: Anyhoo I guess it really comes down to what you prefer, I prefer SS's controls because they are LIGHT YEARS!! LIGHT YEARS!!! More realistic than TP's.
Random Person
Just Some Random Person
The first part of your post would be a problem with either AI or a problem with motion control implementation (underlining things makes them true) not the motion controls themselves or motion control strategy. If that's what you meant, my bad, I didn't get that from your first post.
The second part, if you stand TP's motion control's next to SS's, to an outsider TP's look bad... for the same reason Halo's graphics looks bad next to Halo 3's. TP's controls, for its time (that's one of my favorite phrases in gaming) were very acceptable and to some (like dat there Random Person) were beyond what was expected. Nintendo didn't have that 1:1 back then. (Though the technology probably existed) but for the motion controls it provided, it felt really good. The term "SS feels more natural" to me sounds like something an X-box gamer would say (I am so sorry if that sounds like an insult, because it isn't). They generally want more real. But if you put someone like me whose going from Zelda game to Zelda game, TP seems like the next step after WW. It incorporates simple motion controls (that at the time seemed complex) and combines them with traditional button pressing. Then the next step would be full motion controls, SS. I simply said that SS felt centered around it's WM+ rather than the other way around. This makes the game feel rather gimicky, even if the controls work really well. Now a game can be gimicky and be fine, Wii Sports has proven this, but SS didn't find interesting ways to implement their gimick. (As I said in my original post). New without innovation can be annoying.
Garo
Boy Wonder
I am mixed on motion controls, but this is almost entirely based upon my personal philosophy regarding controls in general rather than regarding motion controls in general. As such, I'm going to outline that philosophy before I get into why I like some motion controls and dislike other motion controls.
Controls are, at their base, a method of player input in order to interact with the game. The key term here is "input" - a control scheme and a game's use thereof should always involve player input into the action being performed. A button press/motion (or a combination thereof) should always correspond to a choice being made by the player - a choice made to use a certain attack, a choice made to use a certain item, a choice made to move in a certain direction, a choice made to speak to a given NPC, and so on. The control scheme is the interface that the player uses to make his choices within the game. Now, the goal of most games - I feel - should be to reduce that interface, to minimize it. A game wants the player to make a choice within the game world (the choice to swing their sword) rather than a choice within the real world (the choice to press the B button). The larger and more convoluted that interface becomes, the greater the gap between the choice within the game world and the choice within the real world becomes. Fighting games, a genre I am not a fan of, are particularly bad at this: with the incredibly complex combo system that many of them feature, the game feels like a system of button presses rather than a game in which one is actually fighting. The combo list is too intimidating, too memorization-based, and as such the decision in the player's mind becomes less one of what attack to use and more one of "okay, so the combo is Z-A-Down, right?" That kills the experience of the game.
Thus the best control schemes are those that will reduce the distance between the player and the game: the ones that, rather than forming a barrier between the player and the game, bring them closer. The best control scheme, as I have said in the past, is one that is "invisible": it's so natural that players aren't consciously thinking of their button presses or motions, they're thinking of the actions they're performing. This control scheme is ideal, but not practical. Almost every game is going to have an even partially visible control scheme, if not an obstructive one. The two best examples I can think of are Super Meat Boy and Journey. In the case of the former, the controls are incredibly smooth and tight, and the game itself so brutally punishing: any split second decision being made will result in death, so the player is quickly trained in such a way that the controller almost vanishes, and the game becomes about planning a path rather than honing reaction time and button presses. In the case of the latter, movement is such a large part of the game, and movement is perhaps the most natural feeling aspect of any control scheme; where Journey earns its control scheme credit is in the smooth and fluid motion of its camera, controlled either by the right stick or by the tilt of the Dualshock. It's a very natural system of controlling, and works very well. Both games, however, have their shortcoming. The time it takes to learn reaction time and the nuance of the control in Super Meat Boy is noted, and is a brief barrier between the player and the game, if one that erodes over time. The hover and chime buttons (X and O respectively) in Journey are much less natural than the movement and camera options, and while neither has the real sense of being a barrier, they are nonetheless, by virtue of being held as the action progresses, more visible.
So in summation: a control scheme should be invisible, self-evident, and unobstructive, as to reduce the distance between the player and the game and amplify the illusion that the player is performing the actions on screen. This kind of control scheme is ideal, if unreachable.
It may sound like motion controls, by virtue of the emulation of the action being an inherent part of performing the action in game, are a perfect candidate for my ideal control scheme. However, I would argue that most motion controls are not. There are a variety that can help a control scheme approach the ideal scheme, but there are also varieties that can remove it further, and create an additional barrier between the player and the game. In particular, there are three varieties that I see often repeated and would like to discuss. I'll categorize them as good, mixed, and bad.
I've already mentioned an example of the good variety: the camera movement in Journey. This is in the good variety of motion controls precisely because they are unobtrusive. The controller, a standard button-based controller, does not have to be reoriented in order to use the motion control: it has to be tilted, which is the motion necessary to move the camera. During the tilt, access to the buttons continues, allow seamless integration of camera control with other actions (movement, hover, and chime). Additionally, the physical exertion necessary to execute this control is negligible; it's an incredibly minor motion of the wrists. This type of motion control is one that does not create barriers because the action requires no setup, impairs no other functions, and requires minimal physical exertion.
The mixed variety is perhaps the most common, and can be expressed quite simply: aiming motion control. In virtually any game with motion control options that features shooting mechanics, motion control is used to aim the shooting device. These are mixed because there are good things about them, and bad. In the good column, there is the increased accuracy of aiming and the variable speed of aiming. I can move a Wii Remote, for instance, across the screen in a second, or in five. I can completely control the speed at which I adjust my aim, which is preferable to the more often fixed speed of using a control stick to move an aiming cursor. Aiming with a remote or a wand is usually much quicker and accurate, and as such helps to reduce the interface between the player and the game. Physical exertion is typically minor, though I wouldn't say minimal; for the best accuracy, it is usually best to move one's entire arm rather than just the wrist. It's not a strenuous motion, but it's more taxing than a simple wrist tilt, and raises player awareness of the controller. The bad part of this motion control variety is that it often involves re-positioning the wand or remote. Perhaps I am alone in this, but I tend to hold my controllers in a very relaxed fashion, so when an aiming segment would arise - for example, using the bow in Twilight Princess - I was often greeted with a "Point the Wii Remote at the screen" message. This not only involves forcing the player to move their controller into position before executing motion controls, but it also directly alerts them to the fact that "Hey, you are using a controller!" This is contrary to the stated goal of controls to be invisible, and thus is a bad thing. But the increased accuracy and speed of aiming is still a very noted upgrade over the cumbersome control stick aiming, and as such this variety of motion controls fits squarely in a mixed category.
Of mention are gyroscope controls, which rest somewhere in between good and mixed - while the motion required is usually more in line with the mixed variety, it rarely involves actually re-positioning the device. I can't place them confidently in either category, and they aren't widespread enough to merit their own, but it's worth noting.
Now, the bad variety. I know a lot of people really liked it, but I would say that Skyward Sword is the best example of the bad variety of motion controls, which I call "total motion". That's not the best moniker, as there are still a number of button-based controls in Skyward Sword, but I use it because it represents my ultimate gripe with the bad variety: that the fact that the game is motion controlled is constantly put into the spotlight. Let's talk first about the most significant aspect of the motion controls: swordplay. An attractive feature for many, swordplay in Skyward Sword is completely contrary to my ideal control scheme. A swing in one of the eight cardinal directions (as well as a thrust or spin attack) requires a very deliberate action. The offending term here is "deliberate": because the player has to be very precise and decisive with their swings, the mental decision becomes not one of swinging a sword, but one of swinging a Wii Remote. The distinction may seem negligible, but because the motion control must be precise to avoid a poor swing that registers in a way that does not reflect the mental decision (this false registration of the swing being perhaps the worst possible way a control scheme can create a barrier) the player is aware the entire time that they are swinging a Wii Remote. The act of controlling is both physically and mentally active, rather than physically active but mentally passive. No degree of control acuity can remove that.
Skyward Sword also commits a motion control sin that I term "forced input". Basically, forced input involves the player executing an action that is required to proceed and initiated for them, rather than the player choosing to initiate and execute an action that allows them to advance. As I said at the beginning of this post, controls are inputs, and each control action should correspond to a mental decision. But being forced by the game to both approach a sword and then slowly pull it out of its pedestal is not a mental decision; it's a guided cutscene that is based not in reaction or reflex, but in simple tedium. It's an unnecessary act, but one the game forces you to perform regardless. Skyward Sword is littered with these sorts of moments, and I for the life of me cannot determine why these moments exist in the game, except to call attention to the motion controls, which is contrary to the ideal control scheme.
This is not to say that all of Skyward Sword's control scheme is bad - far from it, it's a very functional and acceptable control scheme. But it is far from ideal, as its implementation of motion controls creates conscious barriers between the player and the game that, for me, and I am sure for many others, damage the experience of the game.
So, overall, I have a very mixed opinion of motion controls. It clearly depends on the implementation, and I cannot make a blanket judgment because each implementation is different. I said in the above poll that I "dislike" them primarily because in most cases when people say "motion controls" they are referring to the mixed or bad variety. But I am open to motion controls, so long as they work in the service of the ideal control scheme rather than raising barriers.
Controls are, at their base, a method of player input in order to interact with the game. The key term here is "input" - a control scheme and a game's use thereof should always involve player input into the action being performed. A button press/motion (or a combination thereof) should always correspond to a choice being made by the player - a choice made to use a certain attack, a choice made to use a certain item, a choice made to move in a certain direction, a choice made to speak to a given NPC, and so on. The control scheme is the interface that the player uses to make his choices within the game. Now, the goal of most games - I feel - should be to reduce that interface, to minimize it. A game wants the player to make a choice within the game world (the choice to swing their sword) rather than a choice within the real world (the choice to press the B button). The larger and more convoluted that interface becomes, the greater the gap between the choice within the game world and the choice within the real world becomes. Fighting games, a genre I am not a fan of, are particularly bad at this: with the incredibly complex combo system that many of them feature, the game feels like a system of button presses rather than a game in which one is actually fighting. The combo list is too intimidating, too memorization-based, and as such the decision in the player's mind becomes less one of what attack to use and more one of "okay, so the combo is Z-A-Down, right?" That kills the experience of the game.
Thus the best control schemes are those that will reduce the distance between the player and the game: the ones that, rather than forming a barrier between the player and the game, bring them closer. The best control scheme, as I have said in the past, is one that is "invisible": it's so natural that players aren't consciously thinking of their button presses or motions, they're thinking of the actions they're performing. This control scheme is ideal, but not practical. Almost every game is going to have an even partially visible control scheme, if not an obstructive one. The two best examples I can think of are Super Meat Boy and Journey. In the case of the former, the controls are incredibly smooth and tight, and the game itself so brutally punishing: any split second decision being made will result in death, so the player is quickly trained in such a way that the controller almost vanishes, and the game becomes about planning a path rather than honing reaction time and button presses. In the case of the latter, movement is such a large part of the game, and movement is perhaps the most natural feeling aspect of any control scheme; where Journey earns its control scheme credit is in the smooth and fluid motion of its camera, controlled either by the right stick or by the tilt of the Dualshock. It's a very natural system of controlling, and works very well. Both games, however, have their shortcoming. The time it takes to learn reaction time and the nuance of the control in Super Meat Boy is noted, and is a brief barrier between the player and the game, if one that erodes over time. The hover and chime buttons (X and O respectively) in Journey are much less natural than the movement and camera options, and while neither has the real sense of being a barrier, they are nonetheless, by virtue of being held as the action progresses, more visible.
So in summation: a control scheme should be invisible, self-evident, and unobstructive, as to reduce the distance between the player and the game and amplify the illusion that the player is performing the actions on screen. This kind of control scheme is ideal, if unreachable.
It may sound like motion controls, by virtue of the emulation of the action being an inherent part of performing the action in game, are a perfect candidate for my ideal control scheme. However, I would argue that most motion controls are not. There are a variety that can help a control scheme approach the ideal scheme, but there are also varieties that can remove it further, and create an additional barrier between the player and the game. In particular, there are three varieties that I see often repeated and would like to discuss. I'll categorize them as good, mixed, and bad.
I've already mentioned an example of the good variety: the camera movement in Journey. This is in the good variety of motion controls precisely because they are unobtrusive. The controller, a standard button-based controller, does not have to be reoriented in order to use the motion control: it has to be tilted, which is the motion necessary to move the camera. During the tilt, access to the buttons continues, allow seamless integration of camera control with other actions (movement, hover, and chime). Additionally, the physical exertion necessary to execute this control is negligible; it's an incredibly minor motion of the wrists. This type of motion control is one that does not create barriers because the action requires no setup, impairs no other functions, and requires minimal physical exertion.
The mixed variety is perhaps the most common, and can be expressed quite simply: aiming motion control. In virtually any game with motion control options that features shooting mechanics, motion control is used to aim the shooting device. These are mixed because there are good things about them, and bad. In the good column, there is the increased accuracy of aiming and the variable speed of aiming. I can move a Wii Remote, for instance, across the screen in a second, or in five. I can completely control the speed at which I adjust my aim, which is preferable to the more often fixed speed of using a control stick to move an aiming cursor. Aiming with a remote or a wand is usually much quicker and accurate, and as such helps to reduce the interface between the player and the game. Physical exertion is typically minor, though I wouldn't say minimal; for the best accuracy, it is usually best to move one's entire arm rather than just the wrist. It's not a strenuous motion, but it's more taxing than a simple wrist tilt, and raises player awareness of the controller. The bad part of this motion control variety is that it often involves re-positioning the wand or remote. Perhaps I am alone in this, but I tend to hold my controllers in a very relaxed fashion, so when an aiming segment would arise - for example, using the bow in Twilight Princess - I was often greeted with a "Point the Wii Remote at the screen" message. This not only involves forcing the player to move their controller into position before executing motion controls, but it also directly alerts them to the fact that "Hey, you are using a controller!" This is contrary to the stated goal of controls to be invisible, and thus is a bad thing. But the increased accuracy and speed of aiming is still a very noted upgrade over the cumbersome control stick aiming, and as such this variety of motion controls fits squarely in a mixed category.
Of mention are gyroscope controls, which rest somewhere in between good and mixed - while the motion required is usually more in line with the mixed variety, it rarely involves actually re-positioning the device. I can't place them confidently in either category, and they aren't widespread enough to merit their own, but it's worth noting.
Now, the bad variety. I know a lot of people really liked it, but I would say that Skyward Sword is the best example of the bad variety of motion controls, which I call "total motion". That's not the best moniker, as there are still a number of button-based controls in Skyward Sword, but I use it because it represents my ultimate gripe with the bad variety: that the fact that the game is motion controlled is constantly put into the spotlight. Let's talk first about the most significant aspect of the motion controls: swordplay. An attractive feature for many, swordplay in Skyward Sword is completely contrary to my ideal control scheme. A swing in one of the eight cardinal directions (as well as a thrust or spin attack) requires a very deliberate action. The offending term here is "deliberate": because the player has to be very precise and decisive with their swings, the mental decision becomes not one of swinging a sword, but one of swinging a Wii Remote. The distinction may seem negligible, but because the motion control must be precise to avoid a poor swing that registers in a way that does not reflect the mental decision (this false registration of the swing being perhaps the worst possible way a control scheme can create a barrier) the player is aware the entire time that they are swinging a Wii Remote. The act of controlling is both physically and mentally active, rather than physically active but mentally passive. No degree of control acuity can remove that.
Skyward Sword also commits a motion control sin that I term "forced input". Basically, forced input involves the player executing an action that is required to proceed and initiated for them, rather than the player choosing to initiate and execute an action that allows them to advance. As I said at the beginning of this post, controls are inputs, and each control action should correspond to a mental decision. But being forced by the game to both approach a sword and then slowly pull it out of its pedestal is not a mental decision; it's a guided cutscene that is based not in reaction or reflex, but in simple tedium. It's an unnecessary act, but one the game forces you to perform regardless. Skyward Sword is littered with these sorts of moments, and I for the life of me cannot determine why these moments exist in the game, except to call attention to the motion controls, which is contrary to the ideal control scheme.
This is not to say that all of Skyward Sword's control scheme is bad - far from it, it's a very functional and acceptable control scheme. But it is far from ideal, as its implementation of motion controls creates conscious barriers between the player and the game that, for me, and I am sure for many others, damage the experience of the game.
So, overall, I have a very mixed opinion of motion controls. It clearly depends on the implementation, and I cannot make a blanket judgment because each implementation is different. I said in the above poll that I "dislike" them primarily because in most cases when people say "motion controls" they are referring to the mixed or bad variety. But I am open to motion controls, so long as they work in the service of the ideal control scheme rather than raising barriers.
JuicieJ
SHOW ME YA MOVES!
See, the thing is, this was your personal experience. Mine, and many others', was the complete opposite. I never felt as if I was swinging the Wii Remote. I felt as if I was swinging the sword. There was no intrusion, no break of immersion. I actually felt more immersed due to having so much more control, so much more options as to how to handle the swordplay. Your analysis isn't something that can be applied to everyone, so it in no way can be used at an attempt of objective reasoning. The same goes for what I said, of course. You're the proof in the pudding of that. But that swings both ways.
Basically what I'm saying is that what you've provided was an intensely personal viewpoint, not one that takes a step back and looks at the actual design of the game. It's not really fair to use that kind of analysis for any kind of topic.
Sir Quaffler
May we meet again
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2012
I like them now. I used to not care for them that much, since all I ever saw them used in was for stupid party games. But now that I've seen them implemented into GOOD games (man, I need to find Red Steel 2...) I can see that they really open up the options. We can still have buttons for certain actions, just look at the Wiimote, it has buttons. But the ability to more precisely aim and move in-game makes the possibilities so much more nuanced than before.
*EDIT* Thinking on the subject a bit more I refine my position to this: I think motion controls are good, but only with a type of gameplay that is enhanced by this freedom of movement.
Most games are best left with the standard button scheme. They have a set series of moves the character can make, certain button combos that have been refined over the years, etc. Shoving motion controls needlessly here only serves to hamper the game at large.
But, certain types of games CAN be enhanced by this. Take Okami, for example. The original setup on the ps2 was not that intuitive, it required a bit more patience with the finicky buttons and analog stick to work properly. Switched over to the Wii, and it becomes much more fast-paced and intuitive. Just draw up what you want, much like a paintbrush, and it comes into play. Very easy to understand, over the button setup of the ps2.
So, I think that if you have a game in which you are in control of an item that is handheld and requires precision (like a brush, sword, arm cannon, etc) then the game can benefit from motion controls. But if it's not like that, then you're gonna be hard-pressed to find a way to make it work better than a traditional control scheme.
*EDIT* Thinking on the subject a bit more I refine my position to this: I think motion controls are good, but only with a type of gameplay that is enhanced by this freedom of movement.
Most games are best left with the standard button scheme. They have a set series of moves the character can make, certain button combos that have been refined over the years, etc. Shoving motion controls needlessly here only serves to hamper the game at large.
But, certain types of games CAN be enhanced by this. Take Okami, for example. The original setup on the ps2 was not that intuitive, it required a bit more patience with the finicky buttons and analog stick to work properly. Switched over to the Wii, and it becomes much more fast-paced and intuitive. Just draw up what you want, much like a paintbrush, and it comes into play. Very easy to understand, over the button setup of the ps2.
So, I think that if you have a game in which you are in control of an item that is handheld and requires precision (like a brush, sword, arm cannon, etc) then the game can benefit from motion controls. But if it's not like that, then you're gonna be hard-pressed to find a way to make it work better than a traditional control scheme.
Last edited:
Cfrock
Keep it strong
Motion control takes options away from us. This is best shown by Microsoft's Kinect, which was designed with the intention of not using a controller. Your options for input are so severaly limited because of this that every game for it is bland, uninteresting, derivative and just plain awful. The Wiimote fares slightly better, but only because it has buttons on it. When left to controlling certain aspects of a game with the motion aspect alone virtually every game makes use of the same simple functions: pointing it; shaking it; swinging it; titling it. Even Nintendo's finest minds failed to do any more than those four actions with it, even after improving its accuracy with Motion+, and the controller never came close to providing a more immersive or intuitive experience.
Motion as a control method was a nice experiment but it does nothing but limit the player unless it is used alongside standard controls, at which point the standard controls always out-do them because they never mess up and are always responsive. Gyro control in things like the 3DS and Wii U Gamepad is better because it offers a motion aspect which doesn't impose upon standrad control methods and is simple enough that no one is going to try and use it for anything outlandish. So I say "Nay, but..." because while motion control as we have come to know it holds games back, it still has a small place in the form of gyro. Touch screens have been out-doing motion for years now because touch, especially when placed alongside standard controls, gives you much more control, while motion as we have come to know it takes control away.
Motion as a control method was a nice experiment but it does nothing but limit the player unless it is used alongside standard controls, at which point the standard controls always out-do them because they never mess up and are always responsive. Gyro control in things like the 3DS and Wii U Gamepad is better because it offers a motion aspect which doesn't impose upon standrad control methods and is simple enough that no one is going to try and use it for anything outlandish. So I say "Nay, but..." because while motion control as we have come to know it holds games back, it still has a small place in the form of gyro. Touch screens have been out-doing motion for years now because touch, especially when placed alongside standard controls, gives you much more control, while motion as we have come to know it takes control away.
snakeoiltanker
Wake Up!
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2012
- Location
- Ohio
i just dont like the motion controls. SS imo is the only game that got it right-ish. they still wernt great but it worked. and i dont think that is childish of me at all. in fact i find it vice versa. I;ve been playin games since i was like 3 or 4 and i just like having the buttons and joysticks, actually i use the D-pad over the joysticks usually. i just miss playing Zelda, and Metroid and games like that with a controller. i mean if they were to ever make Mega Man Motion Controls, i think i would just cry. Call me old fashion, but i would really like to have the option to play the next zelda game with a normal controller.
JuicieJ
SHOW ME YA MOVES!
See, this is one of the reasons why I constantly implore that Nintendo needs to take advantage of the Wii U's multiple controllers. Keep the Wii MotionPlus, but have the GamePad and ProController as function options, as well.
So having four different methods available for use... is more limiting than one method available for use? Literally the only thing you can do with buttons is press them.
I think it was pretty foolish of Nintendo to aim at a more immersive experience with motion controls. Immersion comes from believability, not from a control scheme. Red Steel 2 and Skyward Sword may have made me feel like I was actually the one swinging the sword, but it didn't immerse me into the games' world and atmosphere any more than every other great game out there did. If you're going to bring the immersion thing up, it should be about the advertising, not motion controls themselves.
Go play Sonic 2006.
And by that I mean standard controls can just as easily be as inaccurate and unresponsive as motion controls can be. And vice versa, as motion controls aren't inherently inaccurate and unresponsive. Case and point, every great game on the Wii.
Gyro is all well and good, and it's definitely requires less physical action, but I don't see how they're better than motion. I honestly don't see how either is better than the other. Speaking of which...
I'm not sure why you're under the impression that buttons are automatically superior to motion, but that's not an accurate mentality. PREFERRING buttons is one thing. Calling them superior is another. Neither method is objectively superior. They both are capable of functioning flawlessly and providing fun and engaging experiences. To call one or the other superior is just... silly.
snakeoiltanker
Wake Up!
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2012
- Location
- Ohio
I dont really think Cfrock meant the word superior in the way that you are taking it, then again he might. but what im guessing he is saying is that in general, standard controllers are more responsive, you can sit and list what ever games you feel buttons were not responsive too, but when you compare the success of standard controls to that of motion controls, the ratio of games that worked correctly is in the favor of standard controls.
JuicieJ
SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Currently, but that doesn't mean they're automatically better, which is what his wording suggests. Even if he didn't mean it that way, the words he said mean "buttons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motion."