I have been talking about motion control technology being the future of gaming for some time now. The hard cold fact of the matter is that we as gamers constantly push for better, more thrilling experiences and this in turn has lead to gaming developers producing more immersive games. The downside to all this is that the humble gaming controller with its two sticks and eight or so buttons just doesn't cut it anymore and so we're constantly having to twirl sticks and press a combination of buttons simultaneously in order to have our onscreen character perform some of the most basic functions. This is far from ideal and those occupying the top positions within the gaming leaderboards aren't the most skilled, they are simply the best at contorting their hands, fingers and those with best able to memorise which combination of button presses and stick twirls is required at any specific point in time.
Interestingly on EA's Fight Night forums where people claim to want "more realism" ad nauseum, as soon as you mention motion control technology where players would have to actually stretch an arm outwards to throw a punch you are met with wails of no, no NO!!!
So why such opposition...? Is it because as gamers we fit the stereotypical profile of being couch potatoes who are overweight and try our utmost to avoid daylight at any cost? Perhaps we're the kids who were bullied at school and the virtual world of online gaming gives us the opportunity to get back at the likes of those who used to bully us? Whatever the reason, in real life, those who triumph at sports tend to be those with the best skills, the fastest reflexes and the highest levels of fitness . Maybe, just maybe this new technology provides a level of realism that is just a little "too" real for us.
I'm all for motion control tech by the way ;-)
"So why such opposition...? Is it because as gamers we fit the stereotypical profile of being couch potatoes who are overweight and try our utmost to avoid daylight at any cost? "
You can say all you want about real life - except...this isn't real life. It's a video game.
Because I can't shoot a jumper worth crap in real life, I should also be doomed to suck in a basketball video game? If I wanted to suck at basketball - I'd get a ball and show my fail on a real life court. Because I can't run a 4.3 40, I should be a sucky HB or WR in a football game? How would you simulate tackling? Reading the QBs eyes? Running a slant-and-go or a 15 yd out or comeback route? How about pass protection? Or pass rushing?
Certain games may be good with motion sensing, but in the end I would like to stick with controllers. Sure, I want more realistic games. But I want them realist IN THE GAME, not by wagging my arms around like a madman, which is sure to happen. I don't want to be tired after 1 or 2 fights on a boxing game. Sure, it could easily work with a base ball game, until you need to move the players in the field. Maybe a downloadable war sports esque baseball with better graphics.
In the end, I'll stick to playing games on the couch. If I want to make a fool of myself playing a sport with my body, I'll go outside with my friends. There, it's actually fun to be laughing with people like friends or family, and being outside, then just running on the spot on a living room in front of my kinect.
I hope this crap is all just a fad. I play video games so I can sit on my couch and live vicariously through my little"digital athletes." If sport games go completely away from controllers, I'm done. This push for more analog controls is enough for me, I have yet to buy the Kinect, Wii or anything else like that. While the technology is cool I hope it never becomes the primary way sport games are played.