Someone(cant remember the name) had mentioned something to the extent of using the Wiimote as a yoke or flight stick, and the argument was being made that Wii controllers don't have enough buttons for certain types of games.
So what I was thinking was, up until now the Wiimote's motion controls have been used to represent some object or device in the game world (not always, but typically), such as a steering wheel or gun, or in the case of the discussion I'm referring to, the yoke or flight stick. The games that I (and I think most others) would consider truly innovative are the ones that have us manipulating these objects in the game world (levers, buttons, grapple beams or pressure locks from MP3) rather than treating the Wiimote AS the object
The reason we would actually need all those buttons is because we are using the Wiimote as a representation of the cockpit or gun or steering wheel on a car, and that means that we have to have a different input for every possible command, whether it be a button press or motion.
What if, instead of doing it this way, the controllers became the hands manipulating the game world. In other words, rather than using the Wiimote as a steering wheel, why can't it be used as the hands on the steering wheel? Rather than acting as a yoke or flightstick, why can't the Wiimote be the hand operating it? In real life, we don't have 50 different buttons and button combinations to perform every possible action - we just have our 2 hands. In fact, I think that only using preset motions or button presses puts a limit on possible actions and interactions in a videogame. Instead, by manipulating hands in the environment, we have all the tools we need to use any type of levers, buttons or switches in the cockpit of the plane with motion alone (and perhaps innovative use of the buttons we do have). We can use one hand to switch gears in cars. In FPS's, we can manually reload guns, we can unholster them from specific areas on our bodies, etc. without needing a dedicated button or waggle motion to do so. Heck, this could add a whole new level of competitiveness with tactical reloads or quick draws. I envision Wild West shootouts where the winner is the one who is not only the most accurate, but can draw the fastest. And we wouldn't need a hundred different button combinations to do so.
Anyways, obviously there are gapping holes in this logic, such as the responsiveness of the nunchuck, any of the major complaints against 1:1 motion, the limitations of manual dexterity and hit detection, or even the decidedly niche categories of the games I described. My point wasn't really to ask "why can't they do this now?", as much as to just open up discussion for ideas on the future of motion control and interactivity, and maybe even to transcend our preconceived notions about videogame controls. Heck, I'm not even sure that these are viable options to replace a simple button press. But it sure would be cool, wouldn't it?
Anyway, what do you guys think? Am I out of my mind? Am I gonna get a bunch of "lol, didn't read"s? Will Batman and Robin be able to overcome their personal differences in time to stop the nefarious Nazis?
tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"
