In 2006, Nintendo took a big risk and introduced the motion-controlled Wii, ditching the standard gamepad for a wand and a nunchuck.
While the subsequent Wii craze is well-documented, don't expect Sony to make such a drastic change to the next PlayStation's standard controller.
Asked if the PS3's follow-up would consider ditching a more traditional gamepad for something along the lines of the newer, wand-like PlayStation Move controller, Sony Computer Entertainment America's Dr. Richard Marks replied in a new Gamasutra feature interview, "I don't think that makes sense."
He added, "I said that pretty much from the beginning that we're not trying to get rid of the gamepad. The gamepad is a really good abstract device. It can map to so many different things. It doesn't map one-to-one to those things, but it doesn't need to for a lot of game experiences."
Marks is R&D manager of special projects at SCEA, having worked on PlayStation cameras EyeToy and PlayStation Eye, and more recently the PlayStation Move, viewed as an answer to the Wii's accessible and successful control scheme.
But game companies are realizing that traditional gamepads and their many buttons are a turnoff for the mass market -- two clickable thumbsticks alone can be intimidating, let alone d-pads, shoulder buttons and face buttons.
"[The traditional controller] is still intimidating to some audiences, some people," admitted Marks. "And so, those people might like Move better. So, I think having both offered to people kinds of people that want to play is the right choice right now. I think the DualShock, it's just better for some experiences, but the Move is better for other ones."
As for Microsoft's competing Kinect for Xbox 360, Marks said he supports any innovation happening in the market. But he said camera technology still has a way to go before having the preciseness of other control offerings.
"You need a lot more fidelity [in camera technology] to get the kind of control that you can already get out of the gamepad or Move even," he said. "I think to do some of the more subtle things, it's just not possible right now. And I think it might be a ways off because buttons are very exact. They know exactly what the person intends, they push a button or they don't. And that's a tough one to replace with some kind of other gesture."
For more from Marks on his background in robotics and aeronautics, as well as his thoughts on the Kinect and what exactly an R&D manager does during the day, read the full Gamasutra feature, available now.
Good call. I'm left handed and hate the Wii for splitting the controls into separate hands. Having the option to use a traditional controller instead would allow me to enjoy those games again. Options are always best.
Never had a problem with holding the Wii-Mote in the left hand, every game I tried worked fine, Wiimotion Plus works in your left hand as well, as in your right hand. The only problem is, when the game maps a 1:1 movement and displays it on the screen, like in Red Steel 2.
The character holds his sword in his right hand, so the game expects you to hold the Wii-Mote in the right hand, if you want to see an 1:1 adaption of your movements.
To follow-up on what Christian is saying, Epic Mickey has an option that allows you to play the game with the left-hand. The Wii Remote is more flexible than a gamepad, whether it is from any Playstation system, any X-Box system, Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, NES, PC, etc., because a gamepad is designed for D-Pad pressing with the left hand/left thump and button pressing with the right hand, while the Wii Remote can be used on either hand and in different positions, depending on the programming of the game and the creative team's judgement call (which was the case with Epic Mickey).
The interesting point in the evolution of game controllers is, that while in the arcades, controls were often designed for left and right hand (by placing buttons on each side), traditional joysticks for computers always expected you to play with the right hand, the Atari VCS introduced this system and until the NES it was the norm.
With the introduction of the gamepad, that was adapted from the Game&Watch titles, the hand, that controls the movement became the left hand by default. When I think of it, I still find it a rather odd choice, cause most people aren't left handed (like I am), but they are used to control their games mainly with the left hand (or thumb to be precise).
@Mauricio - I'm not really sure how this is even possible. AFAIK, the Wii Remote does NOT do absolute position tracking i.e. it has absolutely ZERO idea of where it is in space. With this in mind, how can it matter which hand you use to hold it?
There's little advantage in using directional controls with your dominant hand. It doesn't require a lot of strength and both hands are adequately nimble to manipulate a d-pad or analog stick. In comparison, the greater strength of your dominant hand does help with rapidly pressing buttons (basically, I don't think Master Takahashi would've be become known for his "16-shot" had he used his left hand for shooting).
Here you may be right, I thought of it myself, I only remembered how bad I was, when the first Joysticks came out with buttons on both sides (Competition Pro) and I tried to play with my dominant left hand.
Not surprising for a company who has barely changed their controller since 1994. It's not nearly as comfortable as the 360 controller, people are just used to it. Sony goes through the motions while Nintendo and Microsoft truly innovate (Wiimote -> Move, Achievements -> Trophies, Xbox Live -> PSN, N64 analog/rumble -> Dual Shock)
Guess I'm just "used to it"... but I far prefer the Sony controllers. It likely matters as to game preference, but I love the accessibility of the D-Pad as well as how the shoulders are laid out. I hate the huge separation of the shoulders on the X-Box controllers, as well as the general "clicky-ness" of the buttons. Plus it makes my hands feel confined, the way my fingers have to wrap up "inside" those little coves on the controller...
But really, I think there's a place for both... I don't mind if they stick with their current controller design.
I also hate the 360 controller, it feels "wrong" on my hands.
Now, SNES style and children (including PS controllers... that if you look are exactly like a SNES controller with 2 extra shoulder buttons and in newer ones the 2 analogs) are just plainly superb.
No wonder, that I don't own a console, but I have a couple of PS2 controllers for PC gaming...
I only need now to find a MegaDrive (6 button) style controller :D Maybe find a clone of the (good, not the crap) Saturn controller with USB...
I have all three consoles, and jump between the three controller types with relative ease. Geez, learn to adapt, people. ;-P
If I had to pick a favorite, I'd go with the X360 simply because that gets played the most. And I have one of those little keypads on it that light up when I type. They are way cool. :)
As long as buttons and sticks provide the most accurate, reliable and responsive means to interface with games then they will never go away, it is as simple as that really. Long time gamers have a known low tolerance for gameplay mechanic that only sometimes produce the desired results, calling them broken, so why would they ever tolerate the same abuse from a control interface that will carry that handicap over to all games being played using it?
>>As long as buttons and sticks provide the most accurate, reliable and responsive means to interface with games then they will never go away, it is as simple as that really
This. Motion controls will remain on the fringes of gaming for the foreseeable future.
It's all about feedback for me. I hate touch screen controls as well as motion control because of this. Heck, I wouldn't even like "mind control" because theres no feedback. Maybe I'm weird, but I'm a button man.
I personally think motion controlling is great for most games, especially FPS games. Have you played KZ3 with the Sharpshooter? It's awesome.
I suppose I should say the Move controller is awesome. I don't care for the Kinect. In that respect he's right, controllers allow for way more precise and intricate movement than the Kinect.
I'm of the opinion that the goal of a controller is to provide easiest translation of intent with ease of motion. It's why variations of the classic setup are still so common despite the surge of movement technologies, since the movement required to input commands into a classically set up controller takes significantly less effort and accomplishes what needs to be done quickly with less room for error.
For now, the classic controller does this by requiring only minimal hand and finger movement to access almost 20 buttons, all while positioning your hands and arms in a fairly comfortable position.
So I suppose the only thing that could take it's place is something that's better at accomplishing the goals. Maybe future controllers will just be in a similar shape, but with a customizable touch-surface? Or perhaps we'll have a better model of glove-like controllers, that can sense differences in finger positioning so it can function as either a classic control scheme or a motion-sensing aid.
The character holds his sword in his right hand, so the game expects you to hold the Wii-Mote in the right hand, if you want to see an 1:1 adaption of your movements.
Anyway, I will not buy any system that does not fully support a gamepad. Period.
With the introduction of the gamepad, that was adapted from the Game&Watch titles, the hand, that controls the movement became the left hand by default. When I think of it, I still find it a rather odd choice, cause most people aren't left handed (like I am), but they are used to control their games mainly with the left hand (or thumb to be precise).
There's little advantage in using directional controls with your dominant hand. It doesn't require a lot of strength and both hands are adequately nimble to manipulate a d-pad or analog stick. In comparison, the greater strength of your dominant hand does help with rapidly pressing buttons (basically, I don't think Master Takahashi would've be become known for his "16-shot" had he used his left hand for shooting).
Here you may be right, I thought of it myself, I only remembered how bad I was, when the first Joysticks came out with buttons on both sides (Competition Pro) and I tried to play with my dominant left hand.
But really, I think there's a place for both... I don't mind if they stick with their current controller design.
Now, SNES style and children (including PS controllers... that if you look are exactly like a SNES controller with 2 extra shoulder buttons and in newer ones the 2 analogs) are just plainly superb.
No wonder, that I don't own a console, but I have a couple of PS2 controllers for PC gaming...
I only need now to find a MegaDrive (6 button) style controller :D Maybe find a clone of the (good, not the crap) Saturn controller with USB...
If I had to pick a favorite, I'd go with the X360 simply because that gets played the most. And I have one of those little keypads on it that light up when I type. They are way cool. :)
All together now: Different people have different needs in their hardware and software.
This. Motion controls will remain on the fringes of gaming for the foreseeable future.
I suppose I should say the Move controller is awesome. I don't care for the Kinect. In that respect he's right, controllers allow for way more precise and intricate movement than the Kinect.
For now, the classic controller does this by requiring only minimal hand and finger movement to access almost 20 buttons, all while positioning your hands and arms in a fairly comfortable position.
So I suppose the only thing that could take it's place is something that's better at accomplishing the goals. Maybe future controllers will just be in a similar shape, but with a customizable touch-surface? Or perhaps we'll have a better model of glove-like controllers, that can sense differences in finger positioning so it can function as either a classic control scheme or a motion-sensing aid.