Why gamers need to embrace new concepts and controls

You would think that of all people, gamers would be receptive to new technologies and devices, but it turns out the opposite is usually true. Gamers should embrace new technologies like motion controls. Whether we like it or not, these ideas have been successful enough to launch the industry into new territory.

The Wiimote, Kinect, PS Move, and even Apple’s iOS devices, for better or worse, have changed the way we interact with technology. New ideas can now be implemented because of these devices, but the community seems less than enthusiastic about them.

Gamers frequently use the terms “gimmick” and “casual” to criticize the devices and games. I was initially a huge naysayer of the Wiimote and its counterparts, so I understand the skepticism. Many of the games that are released for these devices are either pretty simple, or feel as if motion controls were just tacked onto them as an afterthought.

Price is also an issue. Gamers are cautious of being early adopters, and foreign or new technology only reinforces that fear.

After much consideration, I’m much more receptive to these devices and their controllers. Gamers can dismiss them as casual, but what’s wrong with simpler controls? We take the luxury of ergonomic controllers and context sensitive controls for granted.

On a recent episode of Press Pause, Dan Hsu, Carlos Rodela, and Cesar Quintero were discussing the evolution of video games. Part of what they talked about was how controllers evolved with the industry.

Around the 14:15 mark, the discussion shifts to how controllers marked the next generation

I had an experience similar to theirs when I first tried out the PlayStation 2. I only briefly used the DualShock controller on the original PlayStation, and didn’t see what the big deal with analog sticks was. When the PS2 was released, my buddy invited me over and we popped in Zone of the Enders.

This blew my 12-year-old mind!

At the time, I was blown away by how smooth it felt to move in every direction with the analog sticks. I wouldn’t be surprised if I play ZOE again and find fault with the controls, but they were impressive for the time. As developers got more experience with technology, game controls became better and more responsive.

It doesn’t look motion control is going away anytime soon, and other concepts like Augmented Reality and the PS Vita’s Trackpad only point towards more innovative controls and concepts.

Current motion control devices may not be perfect, but they’re a step forward, even if they’re a small one. It takes a lot to overcome the inertia of both the industry and the community.

With time, there will be awesome titles that make better use of the technology. Until then, the best we could do is provide feedback on what does and doesn’t work. Ignoring and dismissing new technologies will only slow down the industry’s progress in creating quality content.

Tags: Zone of the Enders

Problem? Report this post

Danny Concepcion

July 29, 2011

(This comment was deleted)

Report | Reply

Jay Henningsen

Not sure what happened, but I fixed it for you.

Thanks!

André Bardin

July 31, 2011

I'm kind of disappointed that you placed the Dualshock on par with motion controls. These are two completely different things. The "invention" of the analog stick was a change that allowed for better and more fluid control of a character in a 3D gaming environment and required little change to get it to work at its peak, we still use it to this day. You can argue that motion controls have also changed the way you control a character, but the problem is that from my own personal experience motion controls are tolerable at best. They're not a perfect medium and that's really why people don't like them. If the consoles could do EXACTLY what they show in the commercials then I'm sure there wouldn't be *as much* hate, but the way it stands seeing the Kinect on TV and then using it in person is like a McDonald's commercial: the Big Mac looks nice on TV but when you order it, it looks like utter hell.

The concept of a video game controller has been instilled in the market's mentality as a tangible object of sorts for almost 4 decades now. Since the very first game we've been able to hold a physical object and use it to play a game. The problem with taking this object away is that it goes against what entire generations of gamers have been accustomed to. The Wii-mote tries to bridge this gap to an extent but it's still simply not working. There's a problem with gamers not liking motion controls, yes, but there's also a problem with developers not taking the hint and continuing to shove them down the market's throat and then wondering why sales are poor. If an idea isn't working then the smart thing to do is to either axe it completely or step it back a few notches and introduce it with lower force.

You're absolutely right Andre, but my point is that with time they can be what we want them to be. I should have expanded my post to include other things like touch screens and trackpads.

I still love controllers, but as games become more complex we can't keep using the "add more buttons to the controller" solution. I'm not a huge PC gamer because I don't like the feel of using a keyboard, and I'd take alternative controls to a keyboard any day.

Controllers probably shouldn't be replaced, but motion controls, touch screens, and trackpads could supplement them. The Wii U looks like it's going to take advantage of features like gyroscopic aiming, while the PS Vita will feature a trackpad, so it's fair to say the rest of the next generation will utilize new technologies like these. Following generations will improve upon what has already been built. Someday it will be as good as it looks in the commercials.