Poll: Can we stop calling motion controls gimmicky?

[Jeronus]

The dictionary defines a gimmick as:

1 a : a mechanical device for secretly and dishonestly controlling gambling apparatus b : an ingenious or novel mechanical device : gadget
2 a : an important feature that is not immediately apparent : catch b : an ingenious and usually new scheme or angle c : a trick or device used to attract business or attention

I am a bit confused. Let's see what wikipedia has to say on the matter:

In marketing language, a gimmick is a quirky feature that distinguishes a product or service without adding any obvious function or value. Thus, a gimmick sells solely on the basis of distinctiveness and may not appeal to the more savvy or shrewd customer.

I think the wikipedia entry pretty much sums up what quite a few gamers think of the concept of motion controls. I believe this wrong. We are far past the point where motion controls are gimmicky. Besides I think that the word never really applied to motion controls in the first place.

The definition implies that a gimmick doesn't add any value or function. The whole premise of motion control was to add a whole new level of play to the gaming experience. In short, to change the basic functionality of gaming as we know it. I believe the problem lies in the value of motion controls. Some people just don't see it or rather they refuse to. Motion control games can be done right and the value of motion controls to the current gaming market is higher than ever with every major console heavily investing in the motion control technology.

This so called "gimmick" is taking over in a big way that could change gaming forever. The next generation could take motion control to the next level making it the primary way to play with games with classic controllers moving into a close second. Motion controls were never really a gimmick to begin with. If they were, no one would have needed to say they were gimmicky because it would already be apparent to anyone with eyes.

 

[joe the janitor]

Hmmm, that's interesting. Personally I just want motion controls to die. Maybe it's just cause I'm so used do a mouse and keyboard, and normal controls.

 

[sneakypenguin]

People see it as arm waggling or similar. They don't have imagination to dream of the posibilities that a combo motion, sound, and controller have when used in tandem. For all our cries about wanting something new, when that new thing comes around we ignore it.
So they label it gimmick in the vain hope that it will be shortlived.

 

[Mr.Black]

It's still a gimmick. It takes away more from the console than it adds. Motion controls can go die.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Gimmick: an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, esp. one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.

So far Nintendo used it to stay afloat when the others chose higher processing and visual prowess as their gimmicks. Now the others are using it to try to garner some of the appeal the Wii supposedly had. Sounds oddly familiar.

The gaming world revolves around gimmicks. Just stop thinking of the term with derogatory connotations.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

But... it doesn't. The controls on the Wii are the least accurate I've ever seen, they're silly, and they were meant to attract children and people who aren't gamers which is great for the people who don't already play games but not for us who do.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

Motion Controls (and the Wii in particular) need to die. Period. End of discussion. It not only brings nothing of any value to the table, but it's causing Microsoft and Sony to change their business plans, presumably for the worse.

 

[W00ty32]

Motion Controls (and the Wii in particular) need to die. Period. End of discussion. It not only brings nothing of any value to the table, but it's causing Microsoft and Sony to change their business plans, presumably for the worse.

My thoughts exactly. But, also, I see casual gaming as a fad. The latest toy that everyone is having fun with. Sure, they bought their Wii, the requisite shovelware, and had fun with Wii Sports for a while. But soon enough, they'll get bored, and move onto some other thing. That's how the majority of people work. They just have fun with stuff for a while, then forget it.

Eventually companies will realize that hardcore gamers are where the money is- Hell, if it wasn't for the fact that Nintendo made money off the console itself, the fact that most casual gamers have a really low attache rate would mean that they would lose so much money.

Because you know that hardcore gamers know that motion control/touchscreen control are only, and will* always be only a gimmick. Nothing beats the precise-ness of using a good old mouse and keyboard.(Or a controller for those of you who insist they are better. They aren't.)

*Until we invent full VR. If that happens, bring on the motion control!

 

[Jeronus]

We, and by we I mean I, can't/won't stop calling motion controls gimmicky until they can be used in more practical ways throughout a wider variety of titles. All motion controls do currently is encourage the development of a continuous stream of shovelware on the Wii. Maybe when Microsoft and/or Sony release their motion control systems, things will change. But at the moment, motion controls remain gimmicky in many aspects.

Classic controllers encouraged shovelware. Look at the SNES. We can't ignore the potential of motion controls just because a bunch of games made poor use of them. In time, I believe that the tide of shovelware will slow and developers will adapt. We just have to be patient and give our time and attention to games that make it work. Once they realize making shovelware is a bad business move, they will try harder to create something good.

 

[Naheal]

c : a trick or device used to attract business or attention [a marketing gimmick]

Sorry. That's still a selling point. Therefore, gimmick. I will stop calling it a gimmick when it is no longer a gimmick.

 

[DrDeath3191]

I think Motion controls can stand to grow. This doesn't mean I want the classic-style controller to die out, but all of you who think motion control useless have no grasp of imagination. I absolutely believe that motion controls have and will contribute much to gaming.

 

[NoblePhilistineFox]

the wii wasnt gimmicky, "move" is.
the wii was trying something new, it was by no means "revoloutionary" and people who say that are twats who bring a bad name to the wii.
thats all it was, an experiment, same with eyetoy and all of those third-party motion things back in the day
to the ends of what they were meant to be, they fulfill that perfectly and you cant much ask more than that.
the "move" (or whatever its called) is just trying to make a buck.
I think we can ALL assume that motion control is pretty much dead untill people come up with new ideas to test(like playing with your mind, awesome) and the "move" is just encorperating in the dead end.

 

[Zarokima]

Motion controls in their current form can be considered an improvement for the following:
Swordfights (if implemented properly)
FPSs (if implemented properly, and only on consoles, nothing beats mouse/keyboard)
Any kind of cursor-like movement on something without a mouse.

Anything else would be better done with "normal" controls. Sure, you could argue that the quality of all control schemes depends on implementation, but can you honestly say that the average motion-controlled game handles nearly as well as the average "classic"-controlled game?

Also: I play games to relax. Waving around like a swarm of bees is after me is not my idea of relaxing.

 

[kibayasu]

Even with the Motion Plus, Wii games simply comes down to almost-randomly throwing your arm and wrist around. A game is sold on "controlling what happens on screen" and in reality turns into something much much simpler that rarely turns into any sort of coherent control scheme. That fits the definition of a gimmick fairly well.

While I'm withholding proper judgement on Natal and/or Move until they're released and I've tried them, those two at least seem like its going to be pretty damned close to 1:1 movement with games built around not simple movements in simple directions, but more precise and controlled movements, hand gestures, and arm placement. I'm still betting on them being mostly similar to the Wii though, and the lack of feedback will always be a problem.

 

[UberNoodle]

Motion controls are gimmicky just like cars create moral degradation, Rock is the Devil's music, comic books are unintelligent, video games cause real crime and BluRay is unnecessary.

When people say that motion controls are a gimmick, I 1) assume that they are stubborn, 2) wonder if they have ever played Metroid Prime Trilogy or The Conduit, or the many other Wii titles in recent times that use the controls excellently, and 3) wonder if they have any imagination.

Wii controls are most certainly NOT 'just random waving', as people tend to say. Such hyperbole is akin to the whole 'Nintendo is for kids' additude of last generation when all the 'wanna-be mature' boys bought PS2s and Xboxes. It doesn't stand up to any objective review, especially in that such statements are said as absolute and make no allowances for range or scale.

Motion controls are just controls. If that was what gaming started with, we'd all think they were awesome. If we still were using joysticks, we'd all decry the directional pad; 'it lacks finesse', 'it lacks feedback', 'it lacks precision'.

And as stated very well above, it makes no sense to judge the whole of something based on the worst examples within. If that were viable logic, then this sentence would be acceptable: "consoles are all unreliable garbage", or this one "JRPGs are all formulaic", or this one "FPS games are all creativily dead reruns of previous or current wars".

 

[Jeronus]

But... it doesn't. The controls on the Wii are the least accurate I've ever seen, they're silly, and they were meant to attract children and people who aren't gamers which is great for the people who don't already play games but not for us who do.

How many motion control systems have you played? I have tried to avoid naming consoles because I think the controls will evolve as time moves on. It will improve and has the probability to become a staple of the gaming industry.

Motion Controls (and the Wii in particular) need to die. Period. End of discussion. It not only brings nothing of any value to the table, but it's causing Microsoft and Sony to change their business plans, presumably for the worse.

My thoughts exactly. But, also, I see casual gaming as a fad. The latest toy that everyone is having fun with. Sure, they bought their Wii, the requisite shovelware, and had fun with Wii Sports for a while. But soon enough, they'll get bored, and move onto some other thing. That's how the majority of people work. They just have fun with stuff for a while, then forget it.

Eventually companies will realize that hardcore gamers are where the money is- Hell, if it wasn't for the fact that Nintendo made money off the console itself, the fact that most casual gamers have a really low attache rate would mean that they would lose so much money.

Because you know that hardcore gamers know that motion control/touchscreen control will only, and will* always be only a gimmick. Nothing beats the precise-ness of using a good old mouse and keyboard.(Or a controller for those of you who insist they are better. They aren't.)

*Until we invent full VR. If that happens, bring on the motion control!

You forget that the gamer of today might not be gaming in the future. In the future, the hardcore gamer of tomorrow will be the kids of the casual market currently playing with motion controls today. The market is no longer targeting only hardcore gamers. They have to look forward to the future to survive. Nintendo proved that. The money of the hardcore market is no longer enough to sustain the market. If we lose the casual market, shrinking will occur and that means games being delayed and companies going out of business. This will affect hardcore games and well as casual ones. The gaming market can't cater to one demographic and still expect to grow. Growth comes from finding new demographics and convincing them to buy your product. We can only grow or die. Staying the same size forever is the same as death.

 

[RandV80]

Yeah, many of the so called 'hardcore' gamers focus far too much on the gimicky utilization the wii-mote has been used for in many games, and look past the good it brings to other games and the overall potential. Take Call of Duty 3 on the Wii for example. Using the wii-mote to 'paddle' in a boat or plant a bomb is a gimmick with little value. Giving much more precise and PC-like controls to the regular gameplay however is an advancement in gaming. I don't see how any could play a game like Metroid Prime 3 and say it would be better with a regular controller.

It's all about depth of control. In the beginning, we had a single D-pad for XY directions for the left hand and two buttons for the right hand. Nintendo was always the inovator here, leading up to dual analogue sticks. Starting last gen the default setup was two analogue sticks for double XY control and two shoulder buttons on each side for four control buttons. Playstation lets you depress the analogue sticks bringing it up to six buttons. Or alternatively you could use one analogue stick with an additional 4+ buttons.

Consider the Wii-mote + Nunchuk on the other hand. You have dual XYZ control motion control, an additional XY motion control with the nunchuck analogue, plus six accessible buttons. What can be done with all this is up to the developers, some people will ***** & complain while clutching their PS3/360 controllers in a death grip, but I for one welcome the innovative opportunities it can provide. I've played enough games now that simply increasing the graphical capacity on the same games isn't going to impress me, I want to see real innovation.

It wasn't ideal at it's launch it for Nintendo bu you can consider that to have been in 'beta' phase, much like how the N64 controller made it possible to play FPS games but still needed extra refinement.

 

[LeonLethality]

I don't think they are a gimmick and I know they are not perfect and have room to grow but why doesn't anyone say "There's room for both"? because honestly, there is room for both stationary and motion control in the gaming world.