| S.T.A.G.E. said:
A traditional gamer can play a game any way he likes. He can go to a gamerpad based titles and he can enjoy the mastering the casualized experience and new gameplay styles. Nintendo gave options to people you see, even though the gamer pad was an addition. Five years is an exceptional run when your sales are based off of a casual draw. No one knows casual draw or appeal better than Nintendo. The PS2 and PS1 saw larger sales than the Wii but did not rely on casual appeal. Sony had things like the Eyetoy but never marketed them properly so no one knew about them, so in essence Sony started the motion control gimmick, the problem with them is they are not commercially a casual-friendly company. They are a tech fans enthusiasts even though they've been falling behind. My definition for gimmick is in fact the definition. Whether you want to see it as a good thing or bad thing is solely up to you. Nintendo takes pride in their casualized approach. Their art style is casual friendly even if a gamer might care to stick with them.The second you marry new casual controls (or novelties or gimmicks if you will) with casual friendly games you have a winner. The Wii proved that and also proved to be an instant success and savior for Microsoft. |
A fair post. Savior for Microsoft is a bit much though Haha You have to give them credit for aggressive marketing of some core games and their push for online, it all paid off. Kinect is a cash-maker, but wasn't necessary for them since they were doing pretty well in the core genre regardless.
In your second para you bind motion controls to casual, but it isn't a necessity. It's a matter of fact that the casuals embraced motion controls only because the core rejected them. The double standards became clearer when Sony released the Move and core gamers began taking interest in the tech, and embraced it as a value add since they saw the potential for Sony's IPs using it. I'm just glad we're splitting truths apart to see where things went wrong, and if ultimately the rejection of the wiimote was for reasons greater than the technology's intrinsic appeal, but that it was used to attract a casual audience, and that it was branded Nintendo (let's be honest).
Ultimately the casuals will have fueled the motion controls, but I would not be surprised if down the line core gamers will end up using them despite all the gen7 backlash.
Also, you use the term "casual controls", but imho the terminology, just being totally honest, is a product of bias. There is no reason to call motion controls casual unless a PoV was limiting itself to the use of motion controls in casual experiences. Truth is, motion controls were used in games like Time Crisis (Shake to reload), and other revolver arcade games where you have to bend over to take cover much before even the eyetoy.
Hopefully one day we'll be able to look at this in full objectivity, but since gen7 is yet at its twilight and the Wii has been a source of much controversy, the PoVs are still not yet over it enough to reach that point, imho.
