Motion Gaming 5 Years Later

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Blix

I like using motion controls for FPS. Pointing is just the most natural thing ever.

I couldn't imagine playing a game like TF2 with motion controls. Too much jumping, strafing, using button commands and menus. Same goes with any in-depth FPS that requires access to an array of controls for grenades or what have you. In Halo, having to juggle between plasma and frag grenades, jumping, crouching, your flashlight, your guns, changing weapons, duel-wielding, and having to move your hand around to point at the screen just sounds like it would be frustrating.

It might work for Metroid, which isn't a pure FPS anyway. But any really depth-intensive game is going to lose with motion controls.

The Escapist : Zero Punctuation : Kinect

[KillerGremlin]

If there is one genre that fails on consoles, it is Real Time Strategy.

I'm waiting for my Kinect RTS game where I can supplement the mouse and keyboard shortcuts with two hand control like in Minority Report.

Can you imagine playing Starcraft or Warcraft 3 without a keyboard or mouse? It would be awesome.

That's the one genre I see really benefiting from motion control, but I'm not sure how you address the feedback issue.

Likewise, I could see sim games like Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 breaking through on consoles now that we essentially have a mouse for consoles. That's what motion controls are essentially emulating. The technology isn't there for real 1-on-1 motion, and it probably won't arrive until we have some crazy virtual reality future. So essentially console games now have a fancy mouse that uses a wand instead of a mouse. The wiimote even has two buttons on it. And there are mice with directional pads.

To me...the "pointing" advantage of motion controls reminds me of what you can do with a mouse on a computer. I've said that in the past. Maybe the experience is more organic too, because you have more "fluid" motions and you don't have to hold an awkward mouse. But you also lose some feedback and you can imbed your wii-mote in your cat.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I couldn't imagine playing a game like TF2 with motion controls. Too much jumping, strafing, using button commands and menus. Same goes with any in-depth FPS that requires access to an array of controls for grenades or what have you. In Halo, having to juggle between plasma and frag grenades, jumping, crouching, your flashlight, your guns, changing weapons, duel-wielding, and having to move your hand around to point at the screen just sounds like it would be frustrating.

It might work for Metroid, which isn't a pure FPS anyway. But any really depth-intensive game is going to lose with motion controls.

I don't see how any of that.. is bothered on the Wii or Move?

They still have a ton of buttons and allow you to access all of those moves... just give you better precise over a dual analog set up.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

I don't see how any of that.. is bothered on the Wii or Move?

They still have a ton of buttons and allow you to access all of those moves... just give you better precise over a dual analog set up.

I would never play TF2 on Xbox or console. Too many controls and buttons that you lose. Number shortcuts for weapons, keyboard shortcuts for context menus. Spy management is on par with micro management in a RTS.

With Halo or Left 4 Dead, I enjoy the dual analog set-up with the intuitive trigger placement. One click on the analog stick to zoom in, fire, click out. It's very intuitive with occasional trips to the buttons to reload or swap weapons. The Wii-mote can keep up with buttons, it has a Trigger, the A, and a 4-way directional pad. So Wii vs. Xbox/Ps3 is all good and maybe even better.

I just think you lose some precision with things like sniping which are very fluid when you have an analog pad already lined up in a certain direction. I think you lose fluidity when you strafe because orienting your aim with a pointer is imo less precise than using two analog pads. And I think there is a fatigue element, where I can hold an Xbox controller for 6 hours playing Halo or L4D, or a mouse for 10+ hours playing Counter-Strike or anything really. Pointing at the screen is fatiguing for me, and that's all you do in an FPS.

Maybe it is just personal preference and the Wii setup can handle First Person Shooters just as well as the Xbox or PS3 or a PC. I'm curious where the development is then, or why professional FPS gamers haven't switched to a motion control setup.

Edit: Another example, if I take my hand off my mouse or control stick, I don't lose my orientation on screen. That's not possible with a pointer-based system. There's just other little nuances and issues that I think would bug me over time.

Or rotating 180 degrees. Very easy with a mouse or analog stick. With motion controls you have to move the pointer to the left or right and that seems like it would be more nuanced.

And the "fixed grid." I know there is still a fixed grid, but motion controls extend beyond the fixed grid. Like, let's pretend the TV screen is the fixed grid. You can move your mouse or control stick to the corners/edge of the TV and your aim will stop going in that direction. So you effectively have a "fixed grid." You can point off your TV at the ceiling or the floor. I feel like this could create lapses in the fluid aiming which might slow aiming down or make it less efficient to snipe or something.

[KillerGremlin]

I want to add to my FPS list that certain games like Counter-Strike, or even sniping in Halo or using the Rail Gun in Quake 3 come down to very precise aiming. These are games of pixels, where moving a millimeter the wrong way will be the difference between a headshot and a miss.

You can calibrate a mouse, and to a less extent an analog stick, to have very dull sensitivity so that you can have very precise movement. When you watch the Cal League Counter-Strike players you see them moving their mouses A LOT. This is because the sensitivity is so low. The advantage is that when you are making precise, surgeon-like shots towards someone's head, you can accidentally twitch or move too much and still make the head shot.

When sensitivity comes down to my entire arm or hand, as in the case of using a pointer device, there is way less ability to accurately point.

You don't write with your whole arm, you use your fingers and wrist. Precision movements just seem to be inherently vulnerable to large sweeps of an arm.

[KillerGremlin]

Here are some examples. Counter-Strike is a game of TWITCH movements followed by moments of absolute, surgeon-like precision. I have a hard time seeing motion controls ever competing with this:



The beginning of that Counter-Strike example looks like it would handle fine on the Wii. But look at how little movement is actually going on when he is zoomed in. That type of concentration and precision cannot be easily obtained via pointing with your arm. Not as consistently as with a mouse or even with an analog stick. Your arm fatigues, it is susceptible to shakes or movement...I speak from years of hardcore FPS experience here, but I have some more videos below.

The Quake 3 Rail Gun not only requires precision, but it IS a TWITCH game so you are running around ALL THE TIME. Between running, jumping, strafing...it is quite the mental chore to figure out where you are going to go while also figuring out how to kill your opponent. I have a hard time seeing this work with arm movements:



Lastly, Halo 3. Okay, so a big part of sniping is anticipation in Halo 3. Knowing where people are going to spawn...things like that. But this is still a game of precision. And if you look and see how slow the guy's controls are set, you can see that there is quite a delay in the controls. Having "slow" controls allows for surgical like precision when you get down to headshots.

[BreakABone]

I know controlled environment, but hard to say motion controls aren't precise for aiming



Actually... may I make a suggestion... I think we should splinter this discussion because at this point, not really about Zelda.

[KillerGremlin]

That video shows the advantages of motion control and the disadvantages.

Some subtle observations:

-the hit boxes look fairly large
-there are never any moments where the cursor is every steady or still

Advantages motion controls have over a mouse or analog stick:

-it looks easier to make large sweeps across the screen
-in some ways they are more organic since they seem to replicate a real gun; this may be better for games like duck hunt which is essentially a play on skeet shooting

Onto point one of the advantages, I've seen creative solutions for PC gamers. Mice have adjustable DPIs, so you can increase the DPI for twitch movements and drop it back done. I knew a guy who would make the DPI very high for high sensitivity when he was running in Counter-Strike. When he needed to shoot people he would notch the DPI back down. I've tried this set up and found it to be too cumbersome.

Skeet shooting simulation =/= first person shooter. If you add in elements like strafing, I suspect overall precision will go down. Again, the Wii may be better at handling sweep movements, but I still question surgical-like precision.

All-in-all I think you provide a fair counterpoint. And simulation type games would be more fun on the Wii than on a classic mouse or controller. A Wii hunting game or Wii duck hunt would be very fun.

Just compare the Duck Hunt video to the Counter-Strike video I posted, and I think you do see differences with hit-boxes, keeping your cursor stable, and twitch-to-precision movements. The Wii video you posted never slows down, it's a stream of quick shots being fired. You can hide big hit boxes in a stream of action like that.

[Blix]

OK. So I've been working on some projects and have to get back to them soon so I just read a couple of posts of yours, I suppose they have the central, essential idea and I'm going to reply to just that. I played Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 and it is a true FPS on the Wii. It was developed with motion controls in mind and I don't think they left anything you normally see in a traditional FPS out of the game. It did control well, the online was nice and I never felt that it would be better on a regular controller or KB & M. Conduit also gave me a good time online and people were doing head shots like nobody's business. Except me, of course, because my time to play videogames is very limited right now and I fell prey to the young kids and teens who play as much as I used to. But I did feel the Wii mote met the necesities of the games. I'd say if anything, developers have to take a bit of time into thinking how to get things right on the controls and that's about it. They have to spend some thinking of meaninful gestures, what benefits from motion controls and what should stay confined to button presses and how to make it all feel natural and immersive instead of taking you out of the game for unnecessary motions. And The Kinect is very different from both, the PS Move and the Wii and Nunchuck.

Needless to say the kind of game will dictate if it really benefits from motion controls more and the competence of the development teams will have a lot of impact on if it really works for the better or for the worse. But I do believe that a good developer who puts effort into their game will actually be able to make games that leave a special feeling where the player would actually prefer those controls over more traditional ones. I find this similar to how games work nice on controllers for consoles but you should rework the controls before porting them for PC because what works on consoles is bad on PCs and the other way around. I hope this is clear enough.

[Typhoid]

I would never play TF2 on Xbox or console. Too many controls and buttons that you lose. Number shortcuts for weapons, keyboard shortcuts for context menus. Spy management is on par with micro management in a RTS.

But on a console everyone has the same disadvantage, so it becomes 100% moot. It doesn't matter if you can't immediately cycle to your favourite gun from your other favourite gun - because neither can anyone else - unless of course you're able to actually use a keyboard/mouse with the game/system.

Playing MAG with motion controls is actually super fun. It's like a computer/console hybrid. You have the freedom of aiming with your hand, like a mouse - and the comfort of a controller, opposed to keyboard - to move/strafe etc.




Anyways, I used to be super anti-motion controls, but now I don't give a shit. As long as when I'm an old man (who will still no doubt play games) I can understand and comprehend the concept behind how to play the games of that generation. I hope the controller never goes extinct.


Edit: Hey, you guys remember memory cards? Remember how much of a different social experience playing a game used to be?

"Oh, you just bought ______? I've got that game too I'll bring my memory card over and show you what to do when you get to ________"

opposed to

"Hey man, I just got- "
"I know, I saw when you signed in."

[Angrist]

Doesn't a mouse actually also fall under motion control?