Is motion-sensitive gaming a gimmick?

As a Wii owner, I've spent a considerable amount of time playing my way through games that required me moving around the room, jumping up and down like a fool, and generally using my body to control the action on-screen. And while I enjoy it at times, most of it feels like a gimmick.

But there's no debating the fact that the Wii is the de facto leader in the video game space and although Sony and Microsoft have tried repeatedly to downplay its significance, the former may be announcing a new motion-sensitive controller to compete on the same level.

According to Gamesindustry.biz, Sony's latest foray into motion sensing will "break apart" and work in a way that's extremely similar to the Wii-mote.

Although I can't blame Sony for trying to capitalize on a major fad in the gaming industry, does it really want to enter that domain? Motion-sensitive gaming is nothing more than a gimmick that has a slew of hurdles to overcome before it becomes the next logical choice for controlling a video game.

Now I know certain Nintendo fans won't necessarily agree with my contention that motion-sensing controllers are nothing more than gimmicks to make people feel like they're a part of the game, but after playing through so many Wii games, it's abundantly clear that it's true.

Sure, motion controllers make sense if you're driving a car with a wheel or standing on a device, but what about implementing it into a game like Metal Gear Solid 4 or Rainbow Six Vegas 2 where you're not governed by any one move and the complexity of the game requires a conventional controller?

Motion-sensing works for some Wii games like Wii Sports or Wii Fit because you're performing a relatively simple task and can't veer off the beaten path. But in an environment where you're required to move stealthily around objects, fire, duck, roll, and control a team of minions, how would motion-sensitive gaming actually work?

Certainly some are saying that we don't need to worry about that because complex titles are few and far between, but is that true? It may have been true years ago, but today, developers are more than willing to drop millions into major titles and create games that go beyond the old model of jump, shoot, run, and follow a path that takes us through a variety of worlds, doing a variety of things, at a variety of times.

Simply put, motion-sensitive gaming is best suited for the past where video games were less complex and more about ease of understanding than anything else. But today, games are becoming more sophisticated and we need a controller that does as well.

Suffice it to say that although motion-sensitive gaming may look like the future, it's nothing more than a relic of the past that makes you think it's futuristic. In reality, it's a gimmick with limitations that doesn't adequately respond to the changing times.

Sorry, but if you're looking for the future in gaming, motion-sensitive controllers are not the place to find it.

For more on what Don is up to, follow him on Twitter by clicking here!

[devindra_hardawar]

Don, there's a big difference between motion sensitive gaming on the Wii compared to the PS3 and 360. The Wii was built with motion sensitivity in mind, and that's practically the entire focus of the console. From Wii Fit, to all the genre-specific peripherals they're releasing (Mario Kart Wheel, the new gun), motion control is at the complete forefront of Nintendo's market strategy.

Now looking at the PS3 and 360, I think motion control could arguably be a gimick since it's mainly being developed as a response to the Wii. While I suppose a response from both parties is to be expected, I honestly think it's a waste of time for them to play catch up to the Wii's motion control with new peripherals. The sixaxis stuff in the Dual Shock 3 is an interesting hybrid of motion control on a standard pad, and maybe MS should match that sort of hybrid motion functionality eventually, but neither will have much to gain by taking Nintendo on when it comes to motion gaming proper.

[JazGalaxy]

I find it frustrating that the lack of innovation on the part of software developers is being blamed on Nintendos feet for innovating videogame control.

I liken the situation to when the analog stick took over for the D-pad.

The analog stick in the N64 controller and in the Dual Shock was no good for playing analog games designed to work on older consoles. Side scrolling platform games for example. It took long, but not too long, for developers to begin making games that actualy untilized the analog control system for analog games. After that, digital control centric games were, for the most part, no longer made.

With the Wii, developers have been continually making analog stick centered games and then placing them on the wii. Usually they rely on "waggle" to trigger a digital action such as triggering a spin command that would, on any other system, just be a button press.

OF COURSE people don't like that.

For the wii to take off, developers are going to have to begin making movement based controls that, for the most part, are on a 1:1 scale. Wii Sports Baseball is a good example of this.

When people imagine games wtih the wii, they imagine doing actions as though thye WERE the character. the farther the wii strays from this basic concept of the system, the more they will struggle with games.

[JazGalaxy]

I think I can say it better like this:

The games are designed around controllers. That's why the PC and it's mouse and keyboard has traditionally been the home to a completely different style of gaming than consoles and their "joypads".

It is in this way that the Wii MUST play host to an entirely different set of games than what is on other consoles.

The question "how can you play MGS4 on the Wii" shouldn't even be a relevant question since it's like saying "how can I slice my apple with this spoon?". MGS as a series was designed to be on the playstation. Developers should be making Wii games that couldn't ever be played on a PS3, not trying to port crap.

[cporpheus]

Personally, I'm holding out for mind control.

[mk-1601]

Ah. More cluelessness.

"Motion-sensitive gaming is nothing more than a gimmick that has a slew of hurdles to overcome before it becomes the next logical choice for controlling a video game."

Sorry Don, the market has already decided.

"But in an environment where you're required to move stealthily around objects, fire, duck, roll, and control a team of minions, how would motion-sensitive gaming actually work?"

Certainly no worse than the horrible kludge of a dual-stick joypad, as Resident Evil 4 (which controls vastly better with the Wii Remote), Metroid Prime 3 and Super Mario Galaxy (among others) have already comprehensively proven.

[chrkeller]

1. Resident 4 is vastly easier on the Wii compared to the Gamecube and ps2 versions. The difficultly was dumbed down to accomadate motion controls, Gamespot's review will support my arguement.
2. Mario Galaxy barely uses the motion controls. Other than one simple attack move Galaxy plays just like a normal game. So the best Wii game on the market barely makes use of motion controls.

[chrkeller]

I agree completely with the article. I own a Wii and enjoy it quite a bit. Zack and Wiki being a great example of how the motion controls can work well, but the game is simple. Motion controls will only continue to work for simple games. Look at Mario Galaxy, it barely uses motion controls. Games like Gears and MGS are too complicated to ever work with motion controls.

[TheDudeFarOut]

I think you also need to consider the target market/user of the Wii console. Nintendo's Wii and the motion control was designed to bring all the non-gamers (families, etc) into the mix. Motion controls offer an easy (and simple) way to pick up a game without the intimidation of buttons, joysticks, or D-pads. In this way, I think Nintendo really hit the mark with motion controls especially because the movements required are typically very simple and very repetitive. So even games like Mario Galaxy "work" for the non-gamer or extremely casual gamer. Want to hit something in the game? Just shake your nunchuk.

Now I do understand and agree while Nintendo has certainly captivated that audience, they need to start paying attention to the hardcore and typical gamers who will demand a more rewarding and challenging gameplay experience. Otherwise they run the risk of eventually branding the Wii console as the "beginners console."

[chronoex]

It all depends on the type of motion controls you're talking about. The use of the Wii Remote's IR pointer function in FPSs is quickly becoming the industry-leader in terms of playability. Before too long, the Wii might actually end up being the home console of choice for what is quite possibly the most hardcore genre of gaming. Add to that the combination of Wii Remote + Nunchuck and you pretty much have yourself a full-sized controller with the added benefit of motion control. So--yes--many games controlled with a single Wii Remote are simple, but just because they currently ARE does not mean that they NEED to be.

[chrkeller]

The motion controls for the Wii are not even remotely close to being the industry's leader for first person shooters. The top FPS include Call of Duty 4, Halo 3, The Orange Box and Crysis, none of which are available for the Wii. Not too mention top of the line third person shooters such as Gears, Rainbow Six and Graw are also not available for the Wii. Future top FPS including Killzone 2 and Far Cry 2 are not hitting the Wii. In no shape way or form is the Wii even remotely close leading the industry in FPS, in fact it is dead last in that genre. Metroid is the only good game on the Wii that is first person and it is more adventure than shooter. Far Cry hit the Wii and it is one of the lowest rated games to hit the market in 10 years.

[thelivingdaylights]

The fact that the best shooters aren't on the Wii has absolutely nothing to do with how well suited the controls are for the Wii. Metroid Prime and Medal of Honor Heroes 2 for the Wii both show the potential of the Wii for first person games. Medal of Honor controls significantly better on the Wii than on any other system because of the customizable accuracy. Wii doesn't have more shooters because:
1. Developers know their core shooter audience has an Xbox
2. Developers are too lazy to learn how to actually program for the Wii and end up trying to port, instead.
3.They get all high and mighty and believe that because the Wii has less processing power that they can't make a good shooter on it.
The controls are perfectly suited for a FPS; it is the fault of the developers that we don't see more FPSs on it.

[adkman1956]

As a "non-hardcore" gamer I like the motion controls. I could never play the games which require multiple finger movements. I do well, however, at Wii games such as Mario Kart, Wii Sport, Wii Play, and some others. Nintendo knows the "hardcores" will stick to the controllers, and will leave the Wiimote to the rest of us.

[OniOokamiAlfador]

To be fair, the motion sensitive controller style of the wiimote does in fact work with the shooter format. I don't own a wii as it wasn't my first choice, but I have played it on several occasions and for Metroid Prime 3, the pointability of the remote style controller is very useful, and honestly, very intuitive. Now there are plenty of games where it is true that the motion sensor method won't work too well. I could see games like MGS and Splinter cell having conflicts with it, but honestly, the ability to point at the screen.... that is EXACTLY what an RTS game could do with on a console (as it is the one genre that people will still heavily contend as very PC-centric). If I had to make an educated guess on it, I would say the only reasons that the wii's controller isn't the industry leader on shooters are for one that shooter's are not, and never really have been, Nintendo's primary demographic driver. Secondly, to those entrenched in traditional gaming, this is a new and somewhat foreign method that intrudes on what we are used to. Hell, for a long time it was not accepted en masse that a console controller would ever provide an adequate FPS experience, on the basis of the point-and-click philosophy. It's a bit ironic that people are now making the argument in reverse.

[sting7k]

I kind of agree with this. I own a Wii and an Xbox 360. I like my Wii but really I barely play it and the 2 games I play the most, Smash Bros and Mario Kart I don't even use the motion sensing controls. I tried them out and they were fun at first, but its get tiring and you see it isn't what it could be. I do much better just pulling out my old gamecube controllers and playing like I have played games for the past 13 years. I commend Nintendo for breaking the mold and going in a different direction, but even they cannot deny that it just isn't going to work for the real gamers (why else would they keep the "classic" controls in games?). The really complex new games I would never even consider getting on the Wii. I love Nintendo and the Wii is certainly fun when you have friends around and do the sports and stuff, but when we want to play a real game its the 360 we turn too. The Wii is just a toy, not a real gaming machine. Sorry Nintendo, I still love you.

[labazzo]

Motion sensitive joysticks are the future. As the technology grows, so will the sensitivity and what you can actually do in a game. I like being able to move and not just sit there. I just got the Wii and I am loving it. Less chance to get arthritis in the hands. Let me tell you I had a growth in my wrist that hurt. It went away on its own when I stopped playing games for a while.

[Tec Consumer]

Motion sensitive gaming is fun and will probably always have some place in gaming from now on, but the novelty wears off pretty quickly. Then when you're halfway through the fifth or sixth motion sensitive game on Wii, it's like 'enough already, where's the graphics, where's the game and where's my gamepad.' Pet rocks, hula hoops, yo-yos and rubick's cubes were the way of the future once, too.

[Tec Consumer]

Motion sensitive gaming is fun and will probably always have some place in gaming from now on, but the novelty wears off pretty quickly. Then when you're halfway through the fifth or sixth motion sensitive game on Wii, it's like 'enough already, where's the graphics, where's the game and where's my gamepad.' Pet rocks, hula hoops, yo-yos and rubick's cubes were the way of the future once, too.

[Carlox1]

Motion is not the near future in fact it is old, in 1989 i bought the NES with the ZAPPER(gun), the "PAD" and the "POWER GLOVE", with the pad you run and jump over it and the power glove its the same the wii controllers, with the same 3 sensors over the screen, was a kind of new(inovation) and fun in the beggining, nintendo its repeating the formule, but finally you use the normal controllers, so my power glove and my pad were always in the box because i almost never use them, they were erratic and you had to be stand in front of the tv and inside the 3 sensors as the wii controllers, search for "power glove" and NES pad info an photos, the glove had a nice look a kind of robocop hand

[umcrouc0]

Motion controls on Wii sports, Wii fit, Resident Evil 4 and Mariokart work great. They are the only games in which I have seen the controls actually used properly, but that's a fault of game design quality, not of the control scheme itself. A combined button and motion sensing system can work very well provided that game designers actually take the time to design the scheme correctly. I think it has been years since console games became more complex. Games like GTA4 or MGS4 are pretty basic in terms of control schemes so there isn' t much point in adding motion sensing. You walk, shoot, run, drive, select items from menus, use items, etc. But it's basically using a dual analog with a couple of buttons. You could easily use motion sensitive controls for those interactions but why would you bother? You need games with more complex realistic motions for it to make sense. Things that can't be controlled with a button or analog. The actions in 'complex' games are just too simple for it to be needed.

[ninjitsui]

I know there has not been very much content (Or useful content) for motion sensitivity for the PS3, you guys should check out Warhawk. Its a 3rd person shooter, with motion controls for flight in planes and vehicles. The innovation of flying with motion control was exciting and new and changed my mind completely about Sony adding motion control. If there were more games like this, I can imagine the potential this feature can have. I do understand that ultimately, PS3 motion control will not be the main aspect of complex games, but it does add new challenges and allow for new future applications. I'd rather developers have a variety of options than to limit them. Just my opinion. Gimmick or not, I think it depends on the developers. I say motion control will probably stick around for awhile.

[boopiejones]

cough, cough,powerpad cough. cough, power glove, cough cough. whew! 'scuse me!

[Renegade Knight]

As I steer my lastest car with a motion sensative controller in Burnout Paradise I'm not sure I follow you. It's one more way to control the action in addition to the normal buttons and joysticks. Can it be gimicky? Heck yes. Can it add another layer and give you more control? Heck yes. Unless there is something fundamentlaly broken about steering, shooting, and other motion actions...I'm not sure the concept is past it's prime so much as in it's true infancy.