Do we really need motion control?
"You mean you have to use your hands? That's like a baby's toy!"
(Credit: Universal Pictures/MoviesOddity.com)It's by far the definitive theme this year at E3 2009. It seems everyone wants in on motion control. At their respective press conferences, both Microsoft and Sony debuted compelling demos of what they envision as the future of gaming.
Microsoft introduced Project Natal, an initiative to allow the user to play games and navigate through menus using body movements in place of a handheld controller. We got to see what game design guru Peter Molyneux was able to do with the technology in the form of the Milo demo, where a human seemed to convincingly interact with an artificial boy on-screen.
While that demonstration leaves plenty of skepticism and unanswered questions on the table (even with a Steven Spielberg endorsement), most will agree it was the rubber ball block-breaking game performance that really proved that the technology has potential.
Sony on the other hand, presented a seemingly less polished exhibit of the company's motion control ambition. Around the office, we wondered whether or not this was a last-minute addition to the keynote. Surely there's no doubt Sony has been working on a collaboration between the Eye Toy camera and a motion-sensing controller, we're just not sure the company was planning to show it off on Tuesday. That aside, we were impressed by the physics in the tech demo itself and agree that motion control needs some sort of "button pushing" in order to encompass the various genres of gaming. This was made abundantly clear during the first-person-shooter segment of the demo.
Let's give credit where credit is due. If Nintendo did not come out years ago flooring audiences with the Wii, it's tough to imagine that both Sony and Microsoft would be devoting the time and effort in exploring this technology. I know I'd be complacent if both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 never entered the world of motion-based interactivity with games this generation.
This all leads us to the question, "do we really need motion control?" Ask most hardcore gaming enthusiasts and the unanimous answer is simply "no." In an industry fueled by these early adopters, we can't see the conventional video game controller going extinct just yet. That said, we understand the need for such innovation.
Nintendo has proved that reinventing the way people think about games sparks the curiosity of those who might not normally find themselves owning a console. If it's for that reason, to expand the audience of those who play, then we're all for it. But for those who grew up with an Atari 2600 joystick or NES pad in their hands, it's still going to be a much tougher sell. That generation of button-mashers only take graphics and hardware upgrades seriously--they aren't impressed by the wiggle and shake of a Wii remote or Sixaxis controller.
Once motion control doesn't come off as a gimmicky add-on is when it will be widely accepted as a viable way to interact with a game. Until we see the implementation of the magic that Wii hacker Johnny Lee was able to accomplish in an actual game is when we will see a changing of the tide. Interestingly enough, he was recruited by Microsoft and is working on Project Natal.
It's clear each of the big three console manufacturers all have different takes on how motion control should be implemented in creating the most satisfying interactive experience. Whether it's the motion capture and voice recognition of Project Natal, the combination of camera and motion controllers in the Sony effort, or MotionPlus on Wii, it'll be the technology that convinces hardcore gamers to jump on board that will set the tone for the future of gaming.
What do you think? Do we really need motion control in video games? Sound off in the comments section below.
Before covering games and gear for CNET Reviews, Jeff Bakalar dabbled in film and video production. An avid writer, reader, and gamer, Jeff is also an obsessive New Jersey Devils hockey fan. Catch him live every day as the co-host of CNET's infamous podcast, The 404. 
This isn't about taking your existing games and adopting motion control to work with it, this is about getting new games to work with the motion controller. Nintento didn't take a bunch of their old games and try to make them work with the Wii Controller, they made new games and designed them specifically with their controllers in mind.
Of course, some kind of games will never be good for motion controllers, (I can't imagine playing Ms. Pac Man with anything but a joystick) but if a new game is specifially designed for motion it can be just as accurate and quick as any mouse and keyboard.
As a Nintendo Wii owner I can tell you that the Wii's lineup is mostly garbage shovelware designed to trick unknoledgeable consumers. The motion gimmick is so badly done in so many games it's a joke. The "game" that people most commonly associate with the Wii motion controls, wii sports, is amazingly shallow. Not to sound like a snob but most of these games that use the motion sensing do it at the loss of precision, and in places where it honestly for the most part hinders the gameplay.
There are a few exceptions, like Retro's Metriod Prime 3, though.
Anyway my point was that FPS games will always, always be better on PC. Console FPS games always have some terrible form of auto-aim. Add motion controls into the mix and all you have of the FPS experiance is to face in their general direction to land hits. A far cry from the precision sniping and accuracy needed for modern PC FPS titles.
@brizzam I haven't played RE4 on the Wii or PC but I'd bet the PC version has far, far, more accurate controls.
I'm sorry, but that orange look (with the sunglasses indoors) makes me want to punch him.
He's going for a trademark look, I get it, like Paris Hilton with her miniature dog handbag.
I just wish his friends would tell him to stop.
Again. I apologize for saying it and I'm fairly certain he doesn't care.
I bet he has a pet snake that he wears around his neck.
I'm sure he makes a lot more money than I do, so he can afford being offended.
As far as motion control goes ... it's a step toward virtual reality, so it's good. The Natal seems more of a gimmick to me right now and a way to get people away from their Wii. It's gonna need those gloves that produce tactile feeling for me to say wow.
I'm sure the Tony Hawk makers were thrilled to see the Natal skateboarding demo when they are trying to sell their $120 game/skateboard accessory to the public.
An Xbox is not just for gaming. I'm not a console gamer, but I bought a 360 for the other capabilities (Media Center extender, Netfix on my tv, etc.). As time rolls on game consoles will become much more media than gaming centric.
But our kids are gonna love it!
Pretty heavy stuff doc.
but come on xbox has always been know for its online capabilities whats going to happen when there isint any online. i sure hope that when the update comes out that its not mandatory because im not updating until it becomes online enabled
Analog gaming, if you recall, went through the same process when it was introduced over a decade ago. Games that used digital control schemes kept mapping their control to the analog stick and disgusted gamers kept lamenting that they just wanted their D-Pad back.
The same thing is happening now with motion control. Once developers start actaully making games with real motion control, we'll want to play motion controlled games.
To me gaming has always tried to approximate some reality. Motion can do that so why not? I'd rather swing a sword (if accurate) than a stick, which is less of an approximation.
Also since Natal it only an interface controller I can imagine perhaps in 6 years or less a bunch of third party Natals knock off manufacturers building units that work on X Box, PS3, and desktop computers emulating the SDK and cost wise, competing directly against Natal, first to market does not mean a market dominance and in the computer industry, "the scouts are the ones that take the arrows". The question is can Microsoft keep its full body motion control technology ahead of the competition.
Watching the ball breaker game with microsoft I noticed that there seemed to be a larger lag time as the girl was kicking trying to hit the balls. Even though the presentation was extremely unpolished the ps3 controller seemed the most accurate and fluent especially when they were shooting the bow and arrow.
Imagine a survival horror game where you have been moving different parts of your body for most of a level, you're actually physically tired, and worried about what might be around the next corner. You're fatigued enough that it's hard to keep the virtual flashlight you're holding steady - to make matters worse, you're in a no-pause section of the game, so there isn't time to catch your breath. As a bit of sweat gets into your eye, you kick open the door and forge ahead into the dark room.
Think that would be the same experience if you were sitting on the couch, eating chips and pausing to take a swig of soda?
-Vance
Stand by folks, this is just the beginning!