Kingdoms of Amalur proves motion controls suck

Default_picture
Monday, February 13, 2012

Amalur is not a Skyrim-killer in terms of world building, its level design pales in comparison to Skyward Sword and the charm and humour of Fable is just not there. But it beats out these legendary franchises in what matters most; Kingdoms of Amalur makes combat fun.

If we're being honest, Skyrim's combat is a glorified slap-fest not unlike Goldeneye's vertical karate chop. A first person perspective aids bow hunting and spell accuracy, but absolutely kills the joy of stabbing dragons to death. I bet as a child you never imagined killing dragons by grinding up against their flank and flailing wildly. No, if you're like me you fantasized about crawling up the monster's back (read jungle gym) and gutting the beast with your enchanted daggers (read wooden sticks). Or maybe you imagined calling down a meteorite during a moment of controlled magic will. Either way, someone at Big Huge Games was channelling their inner child. And every time my hybrid spell-slinging, back-stabbing, war hammer using elf entered combat, the same silly grin from those days on the playground spread across my face.


But just thinking about motion controls makes me cringe. I finally got around to Skyward Sword (no thanks to Skyrim) and couldn't help but wish I was playing Amalur. Don't get me wrong, Zelda's lore, the dungeon design and art are still worlds better. But instead of feeling like a bad-ass sellsword, my wrist hurt. Instead of feeling powerful I felt like an inept child trying to finagle the ridiculous boss key into its hole, or jabbing wildly at a giant spider only to fail because of a delayed and inaccurate response from Link or worse, my own lack of skill. I felt like I was six years old again, leaning into Mario's jump or wrenching the NES controller to the right to clear the goombas.

I realized then, that instead of fulfilling a childhood fantasy like Amalur had, Skyward Sword's motion controls exchanged my imaginary sword for a real plastic stick. Instead of inspiring and enabling my inner warrior, motion controls shackled my imagination to my waggling ability. For every ounce of 1:1 immersion, I'm doused in a gallon of frustration and poor hit detection. Instead of projecting myself into Link's world as a powerful swordsman, I was tasked with overcoming my own weakness through shoddy mimicry. I wasn't pretending to kill dragons in the back yard, I was sent to fencing lessons.

My sword skills are unrivaled among the land

Because the tree branch was never about accurately mimicking swordplay, it was about the joy of make-believe. By taking out the forgiving aspect of pretending and making Link's success dependent on your wrist accuracy, the game is no longer about having fun, but about spatial and physical skill.

Amalur's combat recalls the best about being a kid at play: feeling powerful, in control, and living out a fantasy. While Skyward Sword is mired in the frustration of childhood; feeling limited, unskilled, and struggling to perform basic tasks.

Do you see the difference? Motion controls are more akin to a civilian firing a pistol at the firing range, reminded of their inadequacy in firearm combat. Amalur does what a videogame should, like how Call of Duty tricks you into thinking you're a badass marine. Both experiences have their place in life, but only one is best suited for the medium of videogames.




 

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (14)
Default_picture
February 13, 2012

So how would you 'de-waggle' the controls of Skyward Sword? Would you map the sword swinging to an analog stick? Would that turn SS into the good type of game you talked about?

Default_picture
February 14, 2012

One word: Gamecube controller. ;) uhh wait, two words

Default_picture
February 15, 2012

From your short cryptic answer, I can infer that you would use the gamecube controller to play Skyward Sword. Unfortunately, the gamecube controller is insufficient for playing Skyward Sword (Motion Plus is a requirement). There are some game mechanics in SS that require a method of 3-dimensional input, such as the sword and the bowling ball thing. An analog stick only allows 2-dimensional input.

How do you remove motion controls and still keep the 3-dimensional game mechanics in skyword sword?

Default_picture
February 15, 2012

Oh sorry, I meant I would ditch the whole motion control scheme, but I see what you're saying now. I feel motion controls make simple tasks like swinging your sword needlessly complicated, and actually erode the fun of videogames. So to answer your question, to pefectly translate the motion controls wouldn't turn SS into the game I would like to play. But as a thought experiment, i see how difficult it would be to translate motions like the bowling ball input etc. But do you feel the 3 dimensional game mechanics make Zelda more fun than say the control scheme for Windwaker?

Default_picture
February 15, 2012

I haven't played either SS or WW zelda games, sorry. :( I would personally prefer N64 style controls, but I would miss out on the novelty and engaging playstyle of motion-controlled sword swinging.

I'll try to put everything in perspective for myself:

- Some gameplay elements are only possible with motion controls.

- Motion control devices, as they exist currently, are <i>kinda</i> clunky.

- Because of that, these unique gameplay elements themselves become <i>kinda</i> clunky.

- Some people really don't like the existing motion control devices and gameplay, and others enjoy the novelty and unique gameplay they provide.

I think that's where we are at the moment. I think 3D polygonal graphics went through the same phase. Early polygonal graphics allowed gamers to do things like rotating a camera around a character or playing from the perspective of the character (3D first person view). Some people were willing to forgive the atrocious polygonal graphics because of the new gameplay experiences they introduced. Other people at the time (rightly) said that 2D graphics looked a lot better than those crude 3D monstrosities and that 2D gameplay was better (for a while it really was).

But then all of a sudden 3D starting looking really nice, 3D stopped being a gimmick, and developers started designing games around the 3D instead of just 3D-ifying 2D games. Now we have a healthy amount of both 2D and 3D games, each with its unique stengths and weaknesses.

I think that's what will ultimately happen when motion control devices get very advanced. Imagine motion controls where moving the device is as easy as moving around a pencil, or even further where you just move your fingers around and it translates to 3D input. That's what I look forward to.

So maybe your article should be titled: "Kingdoms of Amalur proves motion controls suck (at the moment)"

Default_picture
February 16, 2012

Hmm, i like your thoughts on 2D vs 3D and the development of motion controls. But I would suggest a comparison is not very helpful in understanding the future of motion controls. And I think the word "gimmick" is crucial to understanding both.

The best definition for motion controls might be, "to clutter with gadgets or an innovative or unusual mechanical contrivance". But I don't think the jump from 2D to 3D can be considered a gimmick, but more of a natural progression. The D-pad essentially had two directional functions: move left and move right. When you're controlling an object in a 3D space, naturally the D-pad gave way to the analogue stick, but it was an enhancement to the control scheme which allowed for 360 degrees of movement. Your thumb was able to do more with almost the same movement. So while it seems like a huge jump, I would argue the way we play games stayed pretty much the same.

However, motion controls fundamentally change videogames. Turning a simple click of the A button to swing your sword to a sweeping hand gesture is a radical change in the way we play games. It may seem innovative, and surely the technology is fun and interesting, but it CLUTTERS up the game. It takes a simple action and makes it more complicated, basically you have to work harder to acheive less. Motion controls are a gimmick, cluttering up a once elegant system with clunky controls. Another definintion might be, "An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project". Look at how much money Nintendo made with the Wii. Now examine how many motion controlled games changed the future of gaming as we know it. Sorry, but this makes me really upset. How many people were duped into buying a Wii because it was a novelty item? An advertising ploy? How many of these "new gamers" played Wii bowling for a few months and then never played again?

Default_picture
February 16, 2012

Hmm, so according to you, motion controls will always be a gimmick no matter how advanced they get. I'm sorry, but I can't continue this discussion.

Default_picture
February 17, 2012

It's not that motion controls will always be a gimmick in videogames, but that motion controls and videogames are two different things. Does that make sense? The future of motion controls we envision is a matrix like virtual reality, right? When we get there, I think videogames will be the gimmicky part of VR. We won't want levelling up systems or a sword that only does 76 points of damage, that's not the strength of Virtual Reality.

Mikeshadesbitmob0611
February 13, 2012

I don't understand how what you wrote equates to Amalur proving that motion controls suck.

Lolface
February 14, 2012

His argument is about immersion, specifically that motion controls are not as immersive as old fashion buttons. With a controller in hand, you can be anything you believe yourself to be, but with motion controls, you can only be what you are, which as he argues in the case of Skyward Sword, is an inept amatuer sword-flailer.

Default_picture
February 14, 2012

Thanks Matthew, when you put it like that the article also makes more sense to me as well! "inept amateur sword-flailer"? ouch! haha

Default_picture
February 14, 2012

@Michael, You're right it's hard to "prove" a subjective experience, I can only say that when played back to back, Amalur creates a sharp contrast to Skyward Sword. I could've said it "highlights" how un-fun motion controls are.
 

Mikeshadesbitmob0611
February 14, 2012

Let me clarify: I understand what the piece is about. It's the TITLE that seems off, here. I agree with what you wrote, and with a little polish, it's a poignant argument. It's the conclusion that the title implies that doesn't seem logical.

 

IF Amalur makes you feel like a badass but has no motion controls

AND Skyward Sword makes you feel inept and has motion controls

THEN Amalur proves motion controls suck

 

In reality, this article is about two different experiences, how Skyward Sword's execution of motion controls make motion control not seem terribly great, and how Amalur gives you that wish fulfillment and visual appeal you want. That's fine. But the statement that Amalur proves that motion controls suck isn't a logical conclusion. It has nothing to do with being subjective. It's something you can't prove given that Amalur would need to have motion controls and have them be terrible for the title to make sense.

 

IF apples are red and delicious

AND oranges are orange but taste bad to me

THEN apples prove oranges suck

 

Same idea, but how does the existence of apples make oranges suck? Oranges suck on their own, and apples are great on their own, in this case. There's no relationship between them. See what I'm trying to get at, here?

 

Default_picture
February 14, 2012

Ahh, I see what you're saying, I should've used Twilight Princess for the Wii and the non-motion control version on the Gamecube. "Twilight Princess for the Gamecube proves motion controls suck"

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.