is motion controls the only new direction for nintendo

I am curious really if nintendo is going to go any further with the motion control idea with their next console. will they beat a dead horse and continue on with the same ideas using motion controls or go back to regular consoles. I feel that if they make a regular console next it could co-exist along side of the wii. effectivily extending the life of the product. since they would be different in application. but if they do motion controls again, then the wii will eventually die out.

what do you think. do you want another better wii or do you like whats out now and want to see something different from nintendo next time around.

no motion plz

no motion plz

kipohippo021

As i see aside from the Wii "Mii" game titled, Nintendo has use motion control in a very simplistic way. Example? SMG2 just shaking the remote to spin ect, & with the addition of motion plus any complicated motion functionality has been pretty much fix. so yeah i think nintendo will keep motion controlling for their next console and support more standard controlling. but they wont beat the horse to dead, i`m pretty sure they have figured out something to set themself aside from the competition.

They're probably preparing something innovative since innovation has worked for them lately, and I think the wii'll die out anyway, but I hope they release something better than just a better wii

mabey but unfortuanatly it is for microsoft. sony is still retaining some controller goodness but is slowly being overtaken by move

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"]

no motion plz

enrique_marrodz

"Motion controls" are not Nintendo's new direction. They were just part of the strategy. Nintendo's new strategy consists on two words that aren't "motion controls", namely, "Arcade gameplay". You will have your occasional Other M and stuff like that, but Nintendo's main strategy involve resurrecting arcade gameplay experiences, which "the industry" ditched a couple of generations ago in favor of the so-called "cinematic experience".

What Nintendo noticed was that cinematic experiences would never find any markets other than the usual young male population (which, by the way, is shrinking, particularly in Japan). A game like New Super Mario Bros. Wii or Wii Sports Resorts, both very arcade-ish, will find their place with the young male population AND other untapped markets.

who knows, and if they do want to stick to motion controls fine, just make sure they retain the classic controllers for a lotof their games, not everyone wants motion all the time...

i sure hope the industry wont grow to stick to motioin controls only, cause that would suck (i think).

I hope they make the right decision..........

"Motion controls" are not Nintendo's new direction. They were just part of the strategy. Nintendo's new strategy consists on two words that aren't "motion controls", namely, "Arcade gameplay". You will have your occasional Other M and stuff like that, but Nintendo's main strategy involve resurrecting arcade gameplay experiences, which "the industry" ditched a couple of generations ago in favor of the so-called "cinematic experience".

What Nintendo noticed was that cinematic experiences would never find any markets other than the usual young male population (which, by the way, is shrinking, particularly in Japan). A game like New Super Mario Bros. Wii or Wii Sports Resorts, both very arcade-ish, will find their place with the young male population AND other untapped markets.

LordQuorthon

And this isn't a new strategy, really.... It's just that Nintendo finally figured out a way to make it work. The Gamecube was born out of the same goal. Look at the controller. The giant A button in the center is a product of Nintendo's desire for simplicity. Miyamoto wanted games that ONLY used the A button. But that never really happened, and people still just looked at it as a controller for "one of those game machines. And why is it a box???"

And going back even further, Nintendo's flagship games can almost all be described as "simple to play, difficult to master." Even though most of us see Mario and Zelda (and to a certain extend, Metroid) as relatively easy now, that's only because we've been playing them for so long. For proof, watch a new gamer play NSMB Wii. They'll be able to understand the controls almost instantly, but they're most likely going to SUCK horribly. Same thing with Zelda (though those have become increasingly complicated, which is why Skyward Sword is what it is).

So the future of Nintendo is simplicity. If that's motion controls, then so be it. If that's more old-school styIe games, so be it. But if they come up with something even more intuitively simple, then that'll be the focus. We'll see.

Most likely Nintendo's next console will just be an evolution of the Wii. That's what they typically do. The NES started simple sprite based games and then the SNES perfected it. The N64 started 3D polygonal games and the Gamecue perfected it and the Wii started motion controls and the next system will perfect it. I'm happy either way, personally I just enjoy video games and as long as I can play Nintendo's first party offerings I don't care whether it's with motion controls or a standard controller. Also motion controls are just part of what the Wii has done. It allows for simpler easier controls for bringing in less experienced gamers. The Wii's interface is the easiest to navigate (it's the only system my wife will use) and the controls are simpler. Even without motion controls there are a lot of games that just use the Wii remote by itself, many times in the horizontal position. Having this simple control setup with very few buttons and no analog stick is great for people who can't figure out the complex 20 button/ 2 analog stick/4 shoulder button/1 d-pad controller. Also the less talked about IR pointer is probably the best thing to happen to games in a long time.

"simplicity."

JordanElek

Dangerous word. Ubisoft's ...Z games are simple, but they suck big time. The difference between Nintendo's "simple" games and, say, Ubisoft's "simple" games is, precisely, that Nintendo builds the whole experience based on their arcade roots, while others just see "casual games mini games casuals cash in, simple and cute game lolololol".

Most likely Nintendo's next console will just be an evolution of the Wii.

AlmightyDerek

It can't be. Their new console hast to disrupt the Wii itself in the same way that the Wii disrupted its competition. Doing things the traditional way would represent the risk of them going the PS3 route.

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]

"simplicity."

LordQuorthon

Dangerous word. Ubisoft's ...Z games are simple, but they suck big time. The difference between Nintendo's "simple" games and, say, Ubisoft's "simple" games is, precisely, that Nintendo builds the whole experience based on their arcade roots, while others just see "casual games mini games casuals cash in, simple and cute game lolololol".

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]

"simplicity."

LordQuorthon

Dangerous word. Ubisoft's ...Z games are simple, but they suck big time. The difference between Nintendo's "simple" games and, say, Ubisoft's "simple" games is, precisely, that Nintendo builds the whole experience based on their arcade roots, while others just see "casual games mini games casuals cash in, simple and cute game lolololol".

I wouldn't say it's just arcade games, though. Zelda isn't anything like an arcade game, but they're still taking Skyward Sword in the "simplicity" direction with streamlined weapon selection and intuitive controls. The idea is that everyone knows how to swing a sword, everyone knows how to crack a whip, so they've torn down the initial controls barrier for newer gamers. They're making the game more accessible (i.e. simpler to understand how it works) right off the bat, and we don't even know yet how the rest of the game will be more accessible.

A lot of people worry that "accessible" or "simple" means "easy," but Nintendo is the master of that balancing act. Few developers understand how to do this as well as Nintendo.

I wouldn't say it's just arcade games, though. Zelda isn't anything like an arcade game

JordanElek

The foundations for current Zelda were built during the SNES and, particularly, the N64 days. NES Zelda games were more action-oriented and had less puzzles. In fact, the second NES game had that "WTF?" vibe and mechanics precisely because Nintendo didn't really know what Zelda's identity as a game was back in the NES days. Zelda games do not adhere to Nintendo's arcade roots, and neither do Metroid games, for that matter. New Super Mario games, Wii Sports, Wii Sports Resorts and, to a certain degree, Mario Kart Wii do.

Remember how I said that "you will get your Other M type of games every once in a while"? That's what I meant. Nintendo rescued the arcade gameplay from its own NES roots and developed a series of games you probably wouldn't have seen on the Gamecube or the N64... Or even the SNES, for that matter, like the Wii Sports and New Super Mario, or even Galaxy, to a lesser extent (unlike Mario 64 and Sunshine, you never really get that "Where do I go next?" feeling with Galaxy). Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword are not the games I'm talking about. Those games have more or less the same values as the rest of the industry's. Hell, Other M will have long cinematics and stuff...

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]

I wouldn't say it's just arcade games, though. Zelda isn't anything like an arcade game

LordQuorthon

The foundations for current Zelda were built during the SNES and, particularly, the N64 days. NES Zelda games were more action-oriented and had less puzzles. In fact, the second NES game had that "WTF?" vibe and mechanics precisely because Nintendo didn't really know what Zelda's identity as a game was back in the NES days. Zelda games do not adhere to Nintendo's arcade roots, and neither do Metroid games, for that matter. New Super Mario games, Wii Sports, Wii Sports Resorts and, to a certain degree, Mario Kart Wii do.

Remember how I said that "you will get your Other M type of games every once in a while"? That's what I meant. Nintendo rescued the arcade gameplay from its own NES roots and developed a series of games you probably wouldn't have seen on the Gamecube or the N64... Or even the SNES, for that matter, like the Wii Sports and New Super Mario, or even Galaxy, to a lesser extent (unlike Mario 64 and Sunshine, you never really get that "Where do I go next?" feeling with Galaxy). Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword are not the games I'm talking about. Those games have more or less the same values as the rest of the industry's. Hell, Other M will have long cinematics and stuff...

Like others have said -- It's about making things pick up and play, simple or rather the word I'd use .. accessible. They want games to become easier to play for the average person. Thus the lack of buttons on the Wii -- and the fact that some games require you to do motions instead of pressing buttons, because it's simple. Take The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword for example. Most people know generally what to do when you have a sword. You swing side to side, diagonally or up and down.

Accessibility is also catching on with development teams and console makers industry wide. You can see how it's changing. Which is actually a good thing to me. I'd love for most games to easy to play but hard to master. Jordan's example of NSMB Wii is great because its true. It's easy to play and generally easy for us people who post here, since we play games often. But to someone who hasn't had much experience with platformers, they find it difficult and are challenged, but it's not because of an overly complex control design -- it's just due to them not being good at it.

So in the future, we'll probably see motion gaming again on a Wii successor, however I still very much see them focusing on the simple, accessible aspects. More importantly, Nintendo has always been about providing the most 'fun' experience. Games are meant to be fun, all that other fluff is nice once in a while but if the core element of the games aren't very fun, I don't think many people would bother with it.

This whole motion controls make things easier thing drives me nuts. Sure it helps with: "how do you swing your sword in real life? " - "hang on let me get my sword out of the closet. Wow! Yep I wave my arm!" - "That's how you do it on the Wii!" - "Brilliant!" moments. But unlike real life if I swing my hand my sword is going to move 100% of the time... Motion controls though it might miss read. It does it once wrong, I hate it. Does it more times, I hate it even more. I haven't played the Wii in over a year now (myself or with new people) where this case didn't happen at least once during the play-time. That isn't 'accessibility', that is frustration waiting to happen. You can debate the same thing happened with controllers, so now at least you are getting the same level of 'accuracy' with a broader appeal possibility. I don't think the precision is even close to a button push though. I just wish there was an option to remap the motions to classic controller pushes. Then if the user wants to wave around, they can. if the user doesn't, they can. That is the real deal that will bring both camps together. I bet the button masher wins in the head on competition more often too...raahsnavj

The non-responsive stuff for a lot of games is because it's programmed wrong. For others, its because people don't do it properly. Red Steel 2 for example, when I first started playing it I felt it wasn't being responsive. After I got used to the controls and learned how to play properly, it worked extremely well. It's probably the best use of motion controls so far on the Wii. Anytime I died was a result of my own fault, not the controls.

It depends on the game though, honestly. Also I've noticed a lot of reviews for Wii games complain about things that are responsive, but it only feels to them that it's not because they don't play the Wii often. Super Mario Galaxy 2 had a number of complaints about the motion sensing stuff, where as for me it was a non-issue. I've played through the first, I've played many Wii games and I know how to do use the controller properly. The people who complain about the motion controls in that game, just make it obvious they don't play it often enough.

I'm not denying that the Wiimote isn't responsive enough, in some games its atrocious -- but the general notion that it's all together unresponsive is false.

[QUOTE="raahsnavj"]This whole motion controls make things easier thing drives me nuts. Sure it helps with: "how do you swing your sword in real life? " - "hang on let me get my sword out of the closet. Wow! Yep I wave my arm!" - "That's how you do it on the Wii!" - "Brilliant!" moments. But unlike real life if I swing my hand my sword is going to move 100% of the time... Motion controls though it might miss read. It does it once wrong, I hate it. Does it more times, I hate it even more.

I haven't played the Wii in over a year now (myself or with new people) where this case didn't happen at least once during the play-time. That isn't 'accessibility', that is frustration waiting to happen. You can debate the same thing happened with controllers, so now at least you are getting the same level of 'accuracy' with a broader appeal possibility. I don't think the precision is even close to a button push though. I just wish there was an option to remap the motions to classic controller pushes. Then if the user wants to wave around, they can. if the user doesn't, they can. That is the real deal that will bring both camps together. I bet the button masher wins in the head on competition more often too...Haziqonfire

Also this whole "motion is easier" thing reeks of what gamers have been saying, "The controller isn't complex, you just haven't learned to do it right" - just from the other perspective.raahsnavj

The Wii remote looks familiar and feels familiar to pretty much everyone. In the development process of the remote, someone even held up a cell phone and asked if they could make the controller look and feel like that. They wanted to get rid of the intimidating unfamiliarity (and stigma) of a traditional controller. The end result is that more people have picked up and used the Wii remote, obviously, even though it isn't as reliable as a button press.

So it's not just a matter of complexity. There's a psychological hurdle, too, for people who haven't played games before. You know when someone asks you to do something that should be SO EASY but you just can't figure it out because you've never done it before and it isn't intuitive? Like a bathroom sink where you have to pull on the whole knob on the top to turn it on instead of just turning it to the left or right, and you sit there trying to force it to the side and it won't go so you try pulling it up but it seems like nothing happened because you didn't pull it up far enough and it felt like it wouldn't go any farther and you decide to just forget it and go without washing your hands but you don't tell anyone because that's disgusting.

...

That's probably what it feels like for people who haven't used a traditional controller before. But the Wii remote is just like their faucet at home.

I am curious really if nintendo is going to go any further with the motion control idea with their next console. will they beat a dead horse and continue on with the same ideas using motion controls or go back to regular consoles. I feel that if they make a regular console next it could co-exist along side of the wii. effectivily extending the life of the product. since they would be different in application. but if they do motion controls again, then the wii will eventually die out.

what do you think. do you want another better wii or do you like whats out now and want to see something different from nintendo next time around.

lost_cheeto

In general, motion controll doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that on the Wii, they think that just about everything needs motion control, and rarely give support for classic controller options. COD, Madden, and quite a few other games could stand a little bit of alternative controller support on the Wii