I don´t know, honestly....Some people, including that Malstrom guy, say this current generation is like the Atari-NES transition from about 23 years ago, meaning either you adapt to the new reality that is to come or you keep playing the same retro games for the rest of your life on the old systems, that is if you haven´t quit gaming by then.

If he´s right, I´ll stay put and evaluate how I feel about this new reality, but what I find interesting is this part from him, found in:

http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/the-third-era-of-console-gaming/

"On various websites, I’ve noticed that gamers are looking at the NES line-up in order to determine the future of the Wii line-up! That is not a bad idea! But there is a very big difference with the NES and Wii style of games.

Miyamoto has said he wanted the NES to do two type of games. He wanted the NES to be able to do sports games which is why the system had two controllers. He also wanted the NES to be able to do games like the new Super Mario Brothers. In other words, the two types of gaming was the immersive solitary experience versus the community non-immersion experience. As we all know, Super Mario Brothers was the big hit while the NES sports games were not (but still had a following).

With the Wii, a reversal has occurred. The non-immersive community games, such as Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and Wii Play, have become big while the immersive solitary games, such as Mario Galaxy, Zelda: Twilight Princess, and Metroid Prime Three, have had typical, stagnant sales (when compared to Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and Wii Play). Wii Sports is the Super Mario Brothers for this Era.
For the current gamers, I suggest you either transition or contend yourself to play retro games forever. Gaming no longer belongs to you. It belongs to the New Generation. Just like the Atari Gamer who couldn’t figure out what the appeal was with Super Mario Brothers, you need to try to figure out what the appeal is to Wii Sports and learn to love it. Non-immersive community games are our future."


If this guy is right about all of that, then I might become that 'Atari gamer' he refers to, but it´ll be a conscious decision, since I understand the appeal he refers to, but it´s just not my thing.

I hope I have the option of a regular controller for most of the games that I like... if not then I'm gonna love the handhelds more than anything next gen...

@ JGarret

I hope to god he's wrong. And I think he is. I think honestly gaming is a large enough culture that the "casual" games can live perfectly fine with the "hardcore" games. Look at the movie industry. Movies made by Pixar which appeal to large audience age groups due great as do films for just strictly a mature audience. Both are great and both generate money. That is the way I believe gaming should and hopefully will be.

Ahh, then we might just be having a misunderstanding here. I believe that motion controllers will be mandatory, but that doesn't mean motion controls will be (Brawl plays just fine with my Wii-mote and nunchuk, after all. You can look at Galaxy, too, in that regard)

Yeah, obviously motion controls aren't necessary in games that aren't very interactive anyway (or are interactive in a way that does not resemble easy motions, like fighting games), but that doesn't mean that everyone won't have motion controllers, and that they won't implement options for classic controls for those motion controllers (hey, if Nintendo's doing it, what's to stop anyone else?)

@ Mr. Khan

good post and just how I feel. I agree I think everyone will have some form of motion and there will be many games that are gonna be awesome with the addition. Just certain games should still use normal controls as well, or at least a legitimately good option offered for someone who doesn't necessarily want to use them just like with the Wii you can get different controllers to play games without the motion if you want to.

I'm pretty sure that all next-gen consoles will feature some flavour of motion controls, but I don't think any of them will completely abandon the gamepad.

Lots of genres are best played with D-pads and/or thumbsticks, including strategy games, 2D fighters, 2D shooters, 2D platformers. Even on Wii, lots of retail and downloadable games don't use motion or pointer controls. Some of them should have, but most of them chose not to because they weren't the best interface tool for the job.

It's not just about motion, it's about versatility. You might not be able to buy a console without buying some kind of motion controller, but I'm sure you'll be able to restrict yourself to games which make limited to zero use of motion controls. I expect Sony and Microsoft to emulate Nintendo's interface strategy, but probably not before the next generation.

I agree.

There is little difference from pressing a button with most motion controls.  Though this may change what with Wii motion +.

Assuming all controllers next gen had a system like that...

Do you really think that in the future gamers will be playing videogames with an antique idea from the late 80's and early 90's?

Maybe car companies could have continued offering crank starts on cars, too?

Motion control is the next evolution, it's time to accept it.

And to the person who said they didn't think that it was able to improve on 3rd person shooters, you're the only one. Go to metacritic, go to the fans, you will find almost unanimous feelings that it was incredibly superior to analog sticks.

ummm.....I really don't know what to say to you other than your being WAY too serious.  This is just a disussion about the future of motion control.  The fact is some people still like to play with a dpad/ thumbsticks and normal interface buttons.  I even said in the post you quoted motion controlls are great.  I just think that some people still like a regular controller even if it is "antique" according to you.

Of course they will have motion control they see $