Poll: Can we stop calling motion controls gimmicky?

[joshuaayt]

Even if they cannot be referred to by the term with perfect accuracy (A point on which I suppose I'll be willing to concede), how else are we supposed to insultingly refer to them? You have to present a catchy sounding alternative, my boy.

 

[Katana314]

I read your point, found it banal, and chose to post that instead. THEY ARE A GIMMICK, unless you're telling me that the wii isn't selling on motion controls alone while the other consoles are selling on non gimmicky things like their games library. They are a gimmick and the fact that casual gamers flock to the wii doesn't make them any less of a gimmick, they're useless and they're not here to stay and my point will be demonstrated when natal and the sony stick come out and are massive failures.

as for their being the next evolution of controls; show me an RTS with motion controls that doesn't suck, show me a TBS with motion controls that doesn't suck, show me an FPS with motion controls that doesn't suck, (there's more genres but it's not like you'll listen so I'll stop here) and then we'll talk.

The Wii is sold on motion controls but it continues to sell because it is more than a gimmick. The Wii does have a less than stellar library but the technology is still new. Developers are still trying to figure out how to implement the control scheme. The shovelware that has become so prevalent is the market trying to figure out how to properly implement the technology. The NES had tons of games like that because people were still trying figure out how to get use to the controllers.

We are currently seeing a kind of molting period for gaming were things feel uncomfortable at first. I believe that once motion controls break out of the shell they are currently in that things will take a turn for the better. A few games come to mind as spots where the shedding has gone better. Games like Red Steel 2 and No More Heroes are proof that when given the opportunity that motion controls are full of potential. Why is the fact that motion controls appeal to a wider audience make them gimmicky? Does an increase in accessibility automatically qualify as a gimmick?

The entire point of motion controls was to get gamers out of their chairs and bring their own movements to the character on screen in a way that creates a new level immersion and a new way to play. A gimmick would be more comparable to the HD graphics of today. They don't add much to the game outside of visual depth. It adds no function or value to the game other than looking very pretty. Gimmicks aren't relevant to the product's function just change the way they appear. Motion controls do the exact opposite of that. They are trying to change the way we play games. Gimmicks don't do that. They are like rims on a car. It looks better, but doesn't improve the basic operation of the vehicle.

I can't show you some of the things you have asked for simply because they don't exist, but if we dismiss motion controls, we never will and no one wins. They can exist but we have to be more open to the idea of motion controls. I am not asking you to go out and buy a Wii, Natal, or Move. I just want you to open your mind to the possibilities.

First, to Monkeyman: Just because something is sold for one reason, doesn't make that one reason a gimmick. If I sell a knife because it lets a 10-year-old cut through a pineapple with ease, that's not a gimmick. If I sell a knife because it can uselessly cut through a shoe, that's a gimmick.

That said, I'm sorry I have to say I still see motion controls as something of a gimmick. They're definitely trying; and some games have gotten halfway, but I really don't see any amazing games that are specifically fun BECAUSE they use motion controls. The originals that decided to use motion for everything just feel imprecise, and now later games just seem to throw it in for those little quick-time events.

On the bright side, it may become more inclusive soon; with motion controls coming out for all three systems (four if we settle on a good median for the PC) then developers wouldn't have to worry about making 2 different games based on the control system.

 

[The DSM]

I will when it stops being a gimmick.

So many times they have just been put in for pointless mini games just to make use of it.

 

[Artemicion]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
I've seen games that have "Motion Control!" printed on the boxes. If they're advertising a game based on motion control, then that makes it a gimmick - regardless of whether it's going to "forward the technology" of the industry and "usher in a new era" of innovation.
"Quotations".

To everyone saying that the Wii's MC is not just "wagglefest", you are wrong. Yes, I'll be the first to admit that the Wiimote can be used for great precision, such as using a Bow & Arrow in Zelda or taking potshots at zombies in RE4, but doing things that require shaking - and many fine movements, generally near the edge of the screen - become so unresponsive that the only way to do something is by going batshit crazy with the controller - The only way I can get Link to reliably do a spin attack is by slamming the nunchuk against my bed. And don't forget RE4's shaking to get the ganados off, or when running away from boulders, etc. There is no better description than "Wagglefest".

Admittedly both of those game's MC were fine, if not generally stellar, and I've seen them put to great use, particularly in Super Paper Mario - But put aside the rail shooters and the sports games, and look at what the most common motion action is used in games.

Wagglefest.

 

[Wicky_42]

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".

I'm with this guy, and the others who say that those who dismiss motion controls are stubborn, unimaginative, and fundamentally resistant to change for no good reason.

On the other hand, the vast majority of developers are treating the controls as mere gimmicks to draw in the casual crowd, rather than as a fundamentally intuitive control system with which to develop and update the gaming environment. Like this guy says:

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.