Poll: Can we stop calling motion controls gimmicky?

[Jeronus]

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.

It is not a trick or device. Motion controls are an integral part of the Wii. You can't play most of the games without motion controls. HD graphics are a gimmick. They add no value or function outside of being able to see your digital avatar in greater detail. HD graphics are a huge selling point for a lot of games but in the end you don't really need them to enjoy a game. A game can look like shit and still be fun.

 

[Cyenwulf]

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.

Please explain how the games market was "dying" for the past 20+ years - before the arrival of the Wii and other assorted shovelware.

Companies are gearing towards increasing market size ('casualizing' their games) purely for profit, motion control being just another of the gimmicks used to achieve this.

 

[Jeronus]

For your convenience, I've gone ahead and bolded key points that counter your arguments.

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'll not sure what your angle is, but honestly. Motion control is quite clearly a gimmick. Until someone can apply it in a way where it has lasting appeal and can be applied to something more than basic sports controls or rail shooting, then there's no point. It's not truly innvoative, it's just pointless in most cases and it ceases to be fun very quickly. And it doesn't matter what company does it, the result will be the same.

So to answer the question in your topic title, A resounding "NO!"

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.

When gamers dismiss they aren't being shrewd or savvy, they are turning it away out of their own stubbornness. Anyone who has played one of the few gems on the Wii knows that the potential of the control scheme is huge and it value shows in these select titles.

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

Ps3's six axis is a gimmick because there is no use for it in anything.
The Wiimote is not a gimmick because it has a function and a reason to exist

 

[Cakekey]

We can, sure. But, at the same time, we won't have much else to say about them until they actually get good. It's so gimmicky because it just seems like a crazy-good idea on paper, and sounds nice in a commercial, while actual gameplay alone spawned the term "wagglefest." I'd love to cal it things like responsive, and intuitive, and, altogether, fun. But I just can't.

 

[EricGossett]

Gimmick or not I find motion control to be a pain.

When I play a game I wanna just sit down and play, not flail my arms around like a idiot or act out the motions of swinging a sword or what not.

And the lack of persission compared to a controller in some genres just makes it not worth my effort.

however, I must admit found the implementation of the SIXAXIS in Killzone 2 to be rather cleaver when turning values and wheels, but other than that motion control isn't my forte.

 

[SilentVirus]

Motion controls add more "interactivity". By "interactivity" I mean careless flailing until the sensor finally realizes what you're trying to do. In a way it is a gimmick. Natal and that painful looking medieval mace thing are in fact quirky features, that I hope to god won't become a main control in the systems.

 

[Jeronus]

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.

Some of the games don't come down to almost-randomly throwing your arms and wrist around. The games I have played make excellent use of the controls and mimic the action on screen quite well considering its limited to the hands. The fact that motion controls sometimes don't have a coherent control system don't make them gimmicky. Regular controllers have suffered from the same problems early on but came around fairly quickly. Sometimes those problems still occur on the controllers. It doesn't make them any more of a gimmick than motion controls.

 

[ObsessiveSketch]

I don't understand your argument. Motion controls fulfill every single one of those definitions, with the exception of 1a. Until motion controlled games get their heads out of their ass and start releasing titles that AREN'T the same mechanics over and over (death by minigame, anyone?), I'm gonna keep calling it a gimmick. And this is from a Wii owner.

 

[polygon]

We can stop calling motion controls gimmicky when they stop being primarily gimmicks. In 99% of cases motion controls offer nothing more than an arbitrarily modified control scheme for which we already had an easier, more consistent and safer model (no one ever broke their TV with a Gamecube controller). The cases in which motion controls are both used to do something that couldn't be done before and do it in a way that makes it as fun and worthwhile as normal methods of control are so small as to be the exception and not the rule.

 

[Birdman1604]

I think that the gaming industry should abide by the results of this poll and abolish all motion controls from their products.

 

[Georgie_Leech]

I have to say that the premise in general isn't gimmicky, but how it was handled is. So many games kind of tack on the motion controls to a pre-existing game idea and the result feels poorly executed. Other games are built around it and the result is quite excellent. For instance, I really enjoyed Metroid Prime Three. I was a pretty lousy shot at first, but I eventually became pretty good, and the controls seemed really natural. Trying to go back and play the other two games made me realize how much clunkier aiming felt with aanolg sticks.

 

[Blasphemous Rex]

Motion controls are a good concept, but they need to be rethought. Red Steel 2 had the right idea with the Wii's motion control, but how else are you going to hold a short stick in different positions without thinking sword.

 

[Jeronus]

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.

Please explain how the games market was "dying" for the past 20+ years - before the arrival of the Wii and other assorted shovelware.

Companies are gearing towards increasing market size ('casualizing' their games) purely for profit, motion control being just another of the gimmicks used to achieve this.

The market has been growing with each generation. In the past 20 years, we went from 2D to 3D, from gaming with people in our homes to challenging people across the globe, from releasing games already finished(or half finished) to releasing them with a ton of DLC and other improvements, and with this generation we see a shift in control. The market has grown with each step and it will need to continue to grow in order to survive. We didn't have all this DLC, online play, and ultra graphics back when I was gaming. This "gimmick" could be the next big step and ignoring it could mean being left behind.

 

[Jeronus]

We can, sure. But, at the same time, we won't have much else to say about them until they actually get good. It's so gimmicky because it just seems like a crazy-good idea on paper, and sounds nice in a commercial, while actual gameplay alone spawned the term "wagglefest." I'd love to cal it things like responsive, and intuitive, and, altogether, fun. But I just can't.

I like your way of thinking because you might one day be able to see it as more than a gimmick. Everyone is considering the entire idea of motion controls gimmicky, out of hand because they fear for their way of gaming. I believe gaming is following its natural evolution. We shouldn't fear change and be derisive but embrace it and encourage it.

 

[Jeronus]

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.

I agree with that but classic has been around for a long time. Imagine if motion controls had come first. People would be complaining about learning button combinations.

 

[Cakekey]

We can, sure. But, at the same time, we won't have much else to say about them until they actually get good. It's so gimmicky because it just seems like a crazy-good idea on paper, and sounds nice in a commercial, while actual gameplay alone spawned the term "wagglefest." I'd love to cal it things like responsive, and intuitive, and, altogether, fun. But I just can't.

I like your way of thinking because you might one day be able to see it as more than a gimmick. Everyone is considering the entire idea of motion controls gimmicky, out of hand because they fear for their way of gaming. I believe gaming is following its natural evolution. We shouldn't fear change and be derisive but embrace it and encourage it.

Yes, that's true. almost every aspect of gaming took time to perfect. Heck, the gameboy didn't get a backlight until the SP. If we try to smother what could possibly turn into something great just because of a slow start, gaming wouldn't be able to branch out, like we all want it to.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

i think its improving, and once it becomes much more smooth and accurate i think they will be able to make some sick ass games with it, as the potential for it hasn't been touched yet so their is a possibility in the somewhat near future i would say.


and really? just because it isn't the M+KB/controller your comfortable with, it doesn't make it "bad" immediately, thats being close minded and a negative elitist about things, in all honesty its brought a good idea to the board, it just hasn't been utilized correctly yet (imo)