Why are FPS gamers against motion controls?

[Tsun Tzu]

Most motion games thus far have been exercises in tedium or attempt, too voraciously, to cling to the "novelty" aspect of it rather than creating engaging and fun games.

They seem to be stuck in the arcade stage, which is perfectly fine given that its a relative new comer to the gaming scene (I know it isn't), but I'd love more Mass Effects making use of the technology than Missile Commands.

 

[Whitenail]

I've played Red Steel 2 and it really isn't anywhere near as good or functional as a controller or keyboard, my hands are jittery enough but for goodness' sake please don't make it so that my movements make the gun spaz around on-screen while my character stares dead ahead.

To quote God only knows who "If it ain't broke don't fix it", and in this case if it's worked perfectly well for the past two decades (PC gamers didn't learn to shift to mouse and WASD just to have to flail around a Wii-mote) don't ruin gameplay with gimmicky motion controls.

 

[psychic psycho]

I think pointer controls work well. I'm big fan of the pointer function of the Wii controller. I find it far better than dual-analog sticks but nowhere near as good as a keyboard/mouse. It takes like 5-10 minutes to get used to the controls.

I'm not the kind of person who hates dual-analog sticks either. I'm comfortable with all control types.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

Because it be tedious, imagine if you wanted to look down your sights, you'd have to drag your arm up, and the only way to turn would to be actually turn around.

Much better and easier to use a good old Mouse and Keyboard.

 

[quhouv vhqwiufv qwiu]

Yahtzee said it best.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/7794-Extra-Punctuation-On-Kinect-and-PlayStation-Move

 

[Geekosaurus]

Because how do you control your movement? Yes, you can jog on the spot to make the person run, but that's hardly the most accurate method of input. It just wont work without an analogue stick of some kind.

 

[Ekonk]

I dont think its just FPS fans, I think most people just hate it in general. But personaly, I dont see how motion controls can translate into a FPS without the game being a rail shooter (And I hate rail shooters).

did you ever play Ghost Squad?? *swoons*

I did, it was hilarious.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

There are a number of problems really, and the priority will vary depending upon the device and the person.

Precision. First Person Shooters rely on a relatively simple core mechanic wherein a player is rewarded for quickly perceiving and reacting to a threat and doing so precisely. When the input mechanism adds a randomizing factor into any particular input, the player's own contribution is at least somewhat negated. A player can never be faster nor more precise than the control allows. A mouse and keyboard represent the long standing gold standard in this regard as a player can achieve pixel perfect precision and split second timing with such a device. All other known control mechanisms ask the player to sacrifice either speed or precision. Motion control most often asks that we sacrifice precision, and this is the worst of all possible compromises. Loss of speed can be compensated for in many cases with better planning and predicting, but a loss of precision cannot be overcome save with volume of attempts.

Comfort. Motion controls use the body as a direct part of the interface. A player is generally forced to hold their limbs unsupported in a particular way and this is taxing after a time. Physical fatigue will eventually set in for any input device, but a motion controller will cause this quicker than a mouse and keyboard or gamepad.

Preference. People become quite comfortable with a given input device as they use it for hundreds if not thousands of hours. Giving them a new device, even if it is mechanically similar will result in an increase in the time between recognizing something needs to be done and inputting the proper commands in order to react. As devices diverge, the amount of inherent discomfort naturally increases. Transitioning from a PS3 to a 360 controller is simple enough as the two devices vary only in the shape and position of buttons (and even then they don't vary significantly in the latter). A mouse to a gamepad is a far more taxing transition. By contrast, transition from a mouse to a motion device like the Wiimote/Move is relatively simple but when moving from a gamepad to a motion device you have the same sort of problem as the mouse to gamepad transition before.

Inferior or Poorly Designed games. Plenty of shooters that use motion controls exist, but most have been poorly received not because the controller was terrible but rather because they simply weren't very good to begin with.

 

[Dexiro]

I dont think its just FPS fans, I think most people just hate it in general. But personaly, I dont see how motion controls can translate into a FPS without the game being a rail shooter (And I hate rail shooters).

You use the nunchuck controller to move, the main controller to point at the screen and the buttons on either controller to do whatever else you'd do with a regular controller. Pretty simple concept.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Hmmm, so far it seems like most of the people here against motion controls haven't played any FPS since the first batch that were released when the Wii came out. It seems to support my theory that a few cruddy control schemes in the beginning tainted people's opinions early on, and very few people have given them a chance since then.

Yes there have been some notable examples of where a motion controlled shooter was actually decent but there has yet to be an example of one that was excellent. This is not a problem with the controller but rather a problem with game design. Using a mouse and keyboard wouldn't make Red Steel a good game for example.

Honestly? There are that many people complaining about the extra motion of pointing? You guys do realize that you don't have to stand with your arms out-streched like you're at a firing range, don't you? Heck, when I play I usually just rest the remote on my lap/arm/whatever depending on how I'm laying on the couch. My wrist probably moves less than when I use a mouse and keyboard to game.

You are being forced to hold your hand in a particular position for a long period. The device you are asked to hold is far from ergonomic and the buttons (on both the Move and Wiimote) are accessible if not entirely comfortable. You can mitigate these to an extent but the bottom line is simple: you will become fatigued more quickly with a motion controller than a gamepad or mouse.

And yet people somehow do it in real life all the time with actual guns...

Besides, when the game translates your "point" on to the screen it uses one dot that can be one pixel thick if the game developer chooses.

FPS games regularly allow for better than human precision. When playing Modern Warfare for example I can fire a shot at a target at 300 meters after a grueling sprint without effort. I do not have to trouble myself with carefully squeezing the trigger or properly seating the weapon or firing at particular points in my breathing cycle. I can hold an 18 pound automatic rifle at the ready for days without fatiguing. These things are not realistic in the slightest. When you use motion controls, you introduce errors in precision precisely because you are now more directly relying on the mechanical motion of the hand. A minor tremble of the hand does nothing to impact my play in a game where I'm using a mouse but when that same motion occurs in with a motion controller, if it is accurate enough that motion is translated into the game.

Funny, people used to say the same of analogue sticks..

People still say the same thing of analogue sticks. As I pointed out, different input mechanisms tend to sacrifice something along the way. Depending upon the game you tend to lose speed or precision with respect to a mouse. Analogue sticks offer a tradeoff in most games as precision can be gained with lower input sensitivity whereas speed can be gained with higher input sensitivity.

Compared to a mouse, yes, but compared with analogue sticks I'd say it's pretty superior.

I think that it could be superior but I have yet to see any example of a game where it has actually been an improvement.

Play the Conduit. All consoles with motion controls should have the option to play FPS games like that.

Also, I haven't tried CoD3, but if I remember correctly it had options for turning speed just like most PC games have a "mouse sensitivity" option.

Any FPS since the days of Duke Nukem 3D has required the player manage several different inputs. Notably, they control the position of the character (i.e. movement) and they control where the character is looking (i.e. aiming). Some games remove the motion aspect (the rail shooter) but for the most part games classified as an FPS require two separate input mechanisms to control where the player is moving and where the player is pointing. While a few games in the early days of consoles experimented with how to best accomplish this, the general tend of the industry indicates that people generally prefer having the "look" control act as a distinct part of the "motion" control. That is, when a player pushes their right thumbstick to the right, they expect the character to turn to the left.

Using a joystick, this isn't a problem in the slightest as a player can simply apply an input and them remove it, or they can apply it indefinitely. Problems notably occur when using a mouse. Eventually when moving the mouse to the left you run out of space. Further motion to the left is seemingly impossible but thanks to a design characteristic, simply moving the mouse upward on the z-axis (that is, you lift the mouse) allows one to make a motion without this motion being perceived as an input. The player can thus reset the position of the mouse to the right and continue with a left turn.

Using a motion controller presents the same problem. The arm and wrist can only move so far. What's more, the need to maintain contact with the IR sensor with the Wiimote further enforces a limited range of motion. The result is, at least in the abstract, similar to the limitations of desk space. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to produce a motion that is not considered to be an input of a sort which means the standard control premise wouldn't work. You could turn a certain distance to the left but then you'd only be able to go right. As a result games have thus favored a strange input mechanism where player control is composed of three distinct areas. The first is the position of the character (i.e. walking), the second is the aiming of the weapon itself and the third is controlling where a character is looking. The problem that naturally arises is simple enough: we have three core control types bound to two separate input devices. The motion controller itself performs double duty in this regard and allows a player to point his weapon but as they near the edge of the screen they then begin altering the facing of the character. It is here that we find the sacrifice in either precision or speed.

These problems do not exist in a rail shooter for a motion control and indeed a motion controller is the better option for such an application because no particular interface is expected to perform double duty. The problem faced here cannot be excised by better design; the best one can hope for is to reduce it's impact on the game as much as possible. The problem, simply put, is that you need three inputs but we only have enough hands for two.

 

[karloss01]

I'd rather have it as an controller option then the only option, thats what drove me away from the Wii. At the time i was playing it they were shoving their motion controls down my throat and most of the time the controls were aweful.

 

[boholikeu]

I'm gonna group a few of these together to avoid repeating myself.

Just out of curiosity, why are so many first-person shooter fans against motion controls? It seems to me that if there is one hardcore genre that could actually benefit from them it'd be shooters.

For the same reasons Yahtzee has explained several times in both Zero and Extra Punctuation:
1) The lack of force feedback will always cripple motion controls

I agree with this to an extent in 1/0 control situations, but in issues like aiming etc. (which presumably is what the motion control would be used for) this is a non issue.

2) Motion controls used for aiming brings trouble when you have to use them for turning (see his review of The Conduit). Until our entertainment venue is 360 degrees instead of an XX" screen this will always be an issue.

Bounding boxes pretty much solve this issue. You might have to configure it so it's comfortable for you (just like you might have to toggle invert mouse, or change mouse sensitivity in PC games), but people who about this aspect of motion controls is a bit like people that can't play a PC FPS because they keep looking at the ground on accident while playing -- they just haven't gotten used to it yet.

3) As mentioned already by several people, the optimal goal is for players to be able to take action with small movements, not larger ones. For FPS games, which puts great pressure on reflexes, accuracy and quick-decision making, this is paramount.

One of the biggest deterrents to motion controls for me is that when I game, I want to sit on my couch and play. If I wanted to be active, I'd be active.

if i wanted to work out in my living room i wouldnt be playing games...

Again, as I mentioned several times above, it's possible to play a motion controlled game with about as little wrist movement as a mouse. The idea that motion controlled games innately require more movement is simply a myth.

In addition:
4) Motion controls are less accurate and slower than mouse-aiming, similar to playing an FPS game on a console.

To quote God only knows who "If it ain't broke don't fix it", and in this case if it's worked perfectly well for the past two decades (PC gamers didn't learn to shift to mouse and WASD just to have to flail around a Wii-mote) don't ruin gameplay with gimmicky motion controls.

the same arguments were used ten years ago against console FPS games, hence my comparison of the backlash against motion controls to the initial backlash against analogue sticks. I have a feeling that as more games come out the negative reaction will dissipate, just as they did for gamepad controlled FPS games.

5) Motion controls aren't designed for complicated games. Games that use motion-controls often constrict the amount of alternate decisions to be made in order to keep button-pushing to a minimum and help focus the experience on the motion controls. In a shooter, you will be concerned with moving, crouching, jumping, shooting, alternate shooting buttons, changing weapons, using special abilities etc. This really only works well in one place, and that is sitting comfortably at a keyboard with alot of buttons available in a convenient manner.

Keyboard controls will always be the most complex, but I've seen motion control schemes that have just as many input options as a traditional controller.

6) For multiplayer FPS games, text-based chat is a must for the optimal experience. Voice isn't always the best.

I've found the opposite, but I guess we can just tag this as personal preference.

I think if it is extremely accurate every time your hand shakes the reticle would shake. unless it is done like Metroid Prime 3 did it. That game was epic.

FPS games regularly allow for better than human precision. When playing Modern Warfare for example I can fire a shot at a target at 300 meters after a grueling sprint without effort. I do not have to trouble myself with carefully squeezing the trigger or properly seating the weapon or firing at particular points in my breathing cycle. I can hold an 18 pound automatic rifle at the ready for days without fatiguing. These things are not realistic in the slightest. When you use motion controls, you introduce errors in precision precisely because you are now more directly relying on the mechanical motion of the hand. A minor tremble of the hand does nothing to impact my play in a game where I'm using a mouse but when that same motion occurs in with a motion controller, if it is accurate enough that motion is translated into the game.

I find it funny that some people claim motion controls aren't accurate enough while others claim that they are too accurate.

Either situation can easily be fixed software side though. Either slight auto-aiming or enemy locking (both of which are already utilized in most console games) could solve these problems.

because were REAL console gamers

Couldn't tell if this is sarcasm or not, especially with the stereotypical spelling mistake. =)

And any critic who denies that the control scheme for the Conduit was worse than having your legs slowly ripped off by dwarves is insane or a bloody liar.

Who knew most game reviewers were liars? =)

Because it be tedious, imagine if you wanted to look down your sights, you'd have to drag your arm up, and the only way to turn would to be actually turn around.

Much better and easier to use a good old Mouse and Keyboard.

Because how do you control your movement? Yes, you can jog on the spot to make the person run, but that's hardly the most accurate method of input. It just wont work without an analogue stick of some kind.

Reread my post again. I'm mainly talking about aiming here. Other actions would still be bound to buttons.

Yahtzee said it best.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/7794-Extra-Punctuation-On-Kinect-and-PlayStation-Move

Good thing I already countered most of the points he made. =)

Motion control most often asks that we sacrifice precision, and this is the worst of all possible compromises. Loss of speed can be compensated for in many cases with better planning and predicting, but a loss of precision cannot be overcome save with volume of attempts.

Again, I don't see how motion controls are innately less precise than any of the other control methods. You even see some people here complaining that they are too precise.

A player is generally forced to hold their limbs unsupported in a particular way and this is taxing after a time.

I play with the controller resting on my leg. It's actually less fatiguing for me than using a mouse for an extended amount of time.

Inferior or Poorly Designed games. Plenty of shooters that use motion controls exist, but most have been poorly received not because the controller was terrible but rather because they simply weren't very good to begin with... Yes there have been some notable examples of where a motion controlled shooter was actually decent but there has yet to be an example of one that was excellent.

This is actually my whole point. I think people's reactions to motion controls is actually a result of bad games rather than problems inherent to the control method.

Also, most people seem to agree that the Conduit had excellent controls.

Analogue sticks offer a tradeoff in most games as precision can be gained with lower input sensitivity whereas speed can be gained with higher input sensitivity.

As a result games have thus favored a strange input mechanism where player control is composed of three distinct areas. The first is the position of the character (i.e. walking), the second is the aiming of the weapon itself and the third is controlling where a character is looking. The problem that naturally arises is simple enough: we have three core control types bound to two separate input devices. The motion controller itself performs double duty in this regard and allows a player to point his weapon but as they near the edge of the screen they then begin altering the facing of the character. It is here that we find the sacrifice in either precision or speed.

These two statements seem contradictory. In one case you imply that motion controls don't have the speed/accuracy trade-off that analogue sticks do, yet they clearly do in the "bounding box" control method you outline above. Good motion control games (like the conduit and metroid) allow the user to customize the bounding box, much like good controller games allow you change the stick sensitivity.

 

[irishstormtrooper]

Just out of curiosity, why are so many first-person shooter fans against motion controls? It seems to me that if there is one hardcore genre that could actually benefit from them it'd be shooters.

After all, pointing at the screen obviously allows for more precision than an analog stick, and when combined with something like the Wii's nunchuck for movement/other commands you have an overall control scheme with as much complexity as traditional controllers.

It's just something that never really made sense to me. True the first FPS out on the Wii did suck, but later games improved very quickly after that. Heck the Conduit was even praised by most reviewers as having one of the best control schemes on a console FPS ever, and yet hardcore shooter fans still call motion controls a "gimmick".

Edit: Just for clarification here I'm talking about "pointing" motion controls over an analogue stick. I'm not talking about full on body controls such as "waggle to throw a grenade" etc. I agree that substituting a button for some motion is pretty silly, but pointing seems much more appropriate for the genre than basically using a miniature joystick (it's also the reason why most hardcore shooter fans prefer a mouse and keyboard over game controllers).

Edit2: Honestly, I can't believe that some of you are pulling the "I play games to relax" card. While I think that's a perfectly acceptable argument against some games being motion controlled, I can assure you that it's possible to play Wii shooters with the same level of exertion as a keyboard and mouse.

Okay, let's do a little experiment. Stand up and hold your arm straight out. Now keep doing that. It gets tiring after a while, doesn't it? Now, imagine playing a shooter where you have to do that every time you don't want to look off in a random direction. I'm all for motion control in games, but only if it's not a hassle to do nothing.

 

[Something Amyss]

Again, as I mentioned several times above, it's possible to play a motion controlled game with about as little wrist movement as a mouse. The idea that motion controlled games innately require more movement is simply a myth.

Partially, I'm talking about things like location. However, current systems require movement tracking to aim, which doesn't end up being small, or gyropscopic motions which, while theycan be tiny, require a lot more force to be picked up accurately. Whether they can be is nice and all, but even comparing the "effort" put into a Super Mario Brothers game with motion controls and without.

Could it be more refined? Probably, but even the best shooters on the Wii don't have that level of refinement, and it's unlikely to happen any time soon.

 

[Krylock]

Because Motion sensor is only fun at parties...