Stick Waggling: Motion Controls in Video Games.

There is no denying it. The hilariously named Wii has dominated a good portion of the gaming market with it's advancements in the fields of motion controls. To those who are not aware of the revolution; motion controls allow video game players to actually move physically around either through a special controller, pad, or camera in order to interact with the gaming world. Sports games, like Wii Sports, actually get the player to move around and make them feel like they're playing baseball, bowling, or what have you.

Nintendo's massive success with the concept has caused the company's two major game console competitors (Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3) to announce their own attempts to join the motion control band wagon. Microsoft has introduced it's own Kinect, a bold plan of attack that uses motion control with no controller and only a camera. While Sony has released PlayStation Move, which is similar to the Wii in the sense that it uses a controller but it also uses a camera to track the wand rather than a light sensor.

You can bet we're going to see some huge console wars, with players fighting over what companies did motion controls better.

But I digress. Motion controls have indeed sped the improvement of technology within the gaming industry. Companies are now focusing on improving the basic hardware of the actual systems to improve the controls, rather than trying to top the last generation's graphics. There generally has been improvement of motion controls as a whole, as demonstrated with the PlayStation Move.

Now that I got the good of motion controls out of the way, let's move on to the bad.

Gaming is still a young industry. However, it is a media no different than books or movies. Games tell stories and reveal art through the most interactive means currently out there; by involving the audience in the story and allowing them to choose what they want to do. But it's still a media. It's a means of entertaining yourself between the brief windows of breaks in your everyday life. Books, movies, music; they all are meant to accomplish the same thing. They entertain people.

It's difficult to argue that motion controls do not entertain people; you've probably picked up Wii Sports and have enjoyed a game or two at least once in the past year. But how long does that last? An hour, maybe two? There are games meant to last longer for these systems, of course, like Super Smash Brothers Brawl or even serious games like Silent Hill and Heavy Rain. But here's the thing.

How long do you like to play a game? Usually it's just until you get bored or until you run out of free time. Your body is completely relaxed and you can savor the fun of the game. It's no different than when you read a book. You don't run around like a maniac while trying to read a page, you find a quiet place to sit down and relax. How in the world are you supposed to relax and enjoy yourself when playing a game with motion controls? Flailing your arms around like ants are in your pants can only lessen your time playing the game because it's a good way to tire yourself out physically.

People have claimed "Oh, it adds fun to the game. It really makes you feel like you're in the world." People play games to take them places they've never been before; but I don't think they really want to be in those places themselves. I know I'd be the first to soil myself if I was ever in the position my character is in every five seconds of Call of Duty. And now I'm expected to move around like my guy in the game? No chance, I'm not fit enough to be whipping my limbs around like I've got a spastic twitch. Besides motion controls don't make you feel as you're in the game world, they make you feel like you're doing an aerobic exercise routine in your living room. And its true motion controls are fun for now, but that neatly brings me to my next point.

A gimmick can only be described as something meant to make a product stand out in order to make it sell better. You're supposed to have fun with motion controls, that's the point of the advertisement. A fun, new way to play video games. But please bare in mind; Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are all business companies. They're not like Mickey Mouse, waving you into a colorful of happiness and wonderful rides. Businesses only care about you because you give them money (Okay, so maybe they are like Mickey Mouse). The point of a business is to earn more money, you are a customer and you have money. See the connection here?

This is nothing new, companies have always tried to grab our attention with "new shiny objects" that will sell their products. The Wii in particular sold well because it targeted a new audience that had otherwise been neglected this whole time, casual gamers (Older folks, children, families, etc).

How about the PlayStation Eye? A camera that let an image of you play on the TV screen early on in the PlayStation years. Maybe Virtual Boy? Or remember the Zapper Gun from the NES? That was a gimmick as well, but now most people only remember it for the game Duck Hunt.

Right now, motion controls are, hopefully, a temporary thing. But many hardcore defenders of the consoles advertising motion controls claim it's a new and interesting idea that will revolutionize gaming. It's a gimmick people; it's no different than 3D in movies. You can't revolutionize the gaming entertainment field by using something that was meant to initially bring in the big bucks.

(WARNING: Video has somewhat offensive language and material.)



Last but not least; motion controls are not an effective means of playing a game, period. What have most of the games that advertise motion controls done with them? Some games do use motion controls as an optional mechanic, but usually it's safer to play with a real controller. Take Super Smash Bros Brawl for example. You CAN play with a Wii Remote, but most people who play it will reach for a GameCube Controller before a Wii wand. Some games like Monster Hunter Tri, don't even play well at all with a remote and force you to buy a D-Pad Controller add on if you want to have any chance of playing the stupid thing.

How about combat based games like God of War? How in the world am I supposed to do a fifty hit combat with a PlayStation Move controller? Why not just rip my arms off from the start? They're going to be useless after I attempt it anyway. Then there's the Xbox's Kinect. Do I even need to explain what can go wrong when your controller is a camera? What happens if you step on the cat while playing?

I'm sure games for these systems will come up with clever ideas to avoid these problems but here's the thing. Isn't that just dodging the issue? If motion controls were the new revolution of the gaming industry, why are they altering their design to meet the standards of traditional gaming? The answer is simple; for gaming consoles, motion controls are a fad.

There's no doubt that research into motion controls will continue into the beyond; maybe until there is at last a virtual world. As they stand now, they have a limited lifespan on gaming consoles. Let's move onto the next gimmick.

10, Roger EbertMay. "Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3D Movies - Newsweek." Newsweek - National News, World News, Business, Health, Technology, Entertainment, and More - Newsweek. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. .

Croshaw, Ben "Yahtzee" "Video Galleries : Zero Punctuation : E3 2010." The Escapist. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. .

"Gimmick." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. .

"Virtual Boy." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. .