Controlling the Controllers

There's a pretty mad battleground being drawn in the virtual sand at the moment and I can't help but feel a bit confused as to exactly why. Let's begin at the very beginning, shall we?

Once upon a time, in a dark room somewhere, some wizened alchemists of yore developed a new marvel. A wonder of light and sound and repetitive action. This new wizardry was to be called Pong and was to change the face of leisure activities as we knew it then. Or as older people knew it at least. But to control this great display of simulated ice hockey/tennis/whatever it was supposed to be, a new device had to first be crafted so that those that partook of the delights of this Pong could directly influence it. And so; forged from the very plastic that had been provided for this purpose, the first Games Controller was brought forth. And lo, there was rejoicing throughout the land. Amen.

Since these humble beginnings there have been many controllers, each attempting to add some new improvement to make gaming that much easier or comfortable. From the Holy Brick that was the NES controller to the strange trident of the N64. From SEGA's sleek and sexy Mega Drive controller to the weird ugly beast that controlled the Dreamcast. Even going so far as racing wheels and light guns. So many iconic designs, so many variations. Turbo buttons, Joysticks, D-Pads, Shoulder buttons, Rumble Paks, Memory card things (seriously, what was that thing on the Dreamcast controller for?). All these features but with one key element the same. The The D-Pad/Stick moves things and the buttons do things. Pretty simple, pretty extensive, pretty flawless. Isn't broke, doesn't need fixing.

And then Nintendo had an idea. While the rest of the gaming world was focusing on Hi-Def and powerful processing, Nintendo looked elsewhere. To the controller. To a new gimmick; after tiny discs and Rumble Paks that weren't just built into the controller to start with. They brought forth a question, a fearful doubt over how games were played. They pondered on the idea of controlling things with physical movement, on Motion Controllers. And so the world as a whole gasped in awe as the Nintendo Wii emerged with its white stick of power dancing erotically in front of our eyes, dazzling all with its power to simulate a baseball bat and then a golf club and then a samurai sword and then a tennis racket. It entranced us all and sold by the hotcake-load.

But then, we found out the truth. Sure, at replicating a swinging action, swinging your arm worked to invoke the desired response from your avatar. But past that, many problems became noticeable. The accuracy was questionable, the sensor bar; easily confused. The lack of buttons required actions to be commanded through seemingly irrelevant movements of the remote and, above all, there were the endless masturbation jokes. Controlling the Wii became an uncertain experience, owing as much to luck as to skill and, quite frankly, it just didn't seem worth being able to actually control a Mario Kart by tilting the controller like we had all subconsciously done in the past. Real, die hard, Played-on-the-NES-and-owned-every-model-of-Gameboy-that-was-released-ever gamers didn't see the need to flail your arm around like a loon just to get Link to swing his sword at someone. Motion control had to be just a fad, right?

But then we come to today, and the ever nearing battle between the other two Games giants. Those that spurned Motion control for better quality graphics and games. Sony and Microsoft. Playstation and X-Box. Good and Evil (This is me being impartial, I'm not saying outright which is which). These two companies have been the pinnacle force in gaming for the last decade and, once more, they are competing for top dog with their new innovation. ... Motion control? Seriously?

It's been coming for a while now. Sony's Playstation Move; essentially a (supposedly) more accurate and more glowy version of a Wii Controller and X-Box's Project Natal Kinect Whatever else it gets called before its eventual release; a gadget boasting its freedom from the reliance on controllers. WOW(!) Forgive my lack of enthusiasm, but I'm not really enthused. As highlighted earlier, Motion control is all well and sparkly (even more so considering the disco light at the end of each Move controller), but it is impractical when you're playing a sports sim or an RPG. You just end up frustrated at the fact you can't just press X to attack and, instead, have to accurately recreate sword techniques laid down by Miyamoto Musashi (yes, I had to look it up).

This problem is exacerbated even more by the Kinect and its supposedly impressive boast that it needs no controllers. What I can't understand is why people are impressed with this. So, instead of using a proven and very reliable method of pressing buttons to do things in a game when we need to, we now have to learn mime and shout what we want done before waiting to see if the recognition software works accurately and quickly enough to do the right action. Does this not seem silly to anyone else? Playing a racing game by miming that you are driving. Why not just go drive? Or, presuming the reason you want to play a driving game is that you can't drive in real life, why not just sit in a cardboard box and use your imagination? You'd look like less of an idiot then the guy who sits in front of a screen frantically flailing his arms and legs because there is too much room for error in a software's interpretation of your movements coupled with the guy that just walked between you and the screen or the itch you just had to scratch.

I can see merits in controller-free control. I, like many others, had a minor fit when I saw Tom Cruise manipulating his computer screen by physically moving stuff around with his hands. I prayed for the day that that technology would arrive. Feasibly, the Kinect offers that. But Microsoft has advocated the use of Kinect as a games controller and, as such, it is flawed. To bring in a flawed accessory to do the job of something that does it perfectly already smacks of desperate money-grabbing. I like games controllers. It always interests me to see what each new one will look like and what features they will have. I thought the PS3 controller was a marvel and, admittedly, that is down to the new Sixaxis thing where you can make movements by tilting the controller. But that worked. Tilting to keep balance whilst walking along a beam is a truly helpful innovation and, considering we all sort of did that anyway, makes a lot of sense. But I digress. The point is, I have never looked at a games controller and raged that it was the bane of my games playing existence. I never saw all the buttons and cried out for the ability to just flail my arms desperately instead. I was happy with games controllers just the way they were.

In the spirit of opinion and review, I will give this final thought. The Wii is fun and, for some games, it offers an advantage. Point and Click does well on the Wii. But, ultimately, there are times when you don't bother with the motion controls and you just use the old fashioned NES layout on the Remote. As for the Move and Kinect, I haven't tried them but I've seen demo footage and I think from that the Move is better. There have been a lot of bugs with Kinect demos that were obviously going to happen from the first advert I saw for it. That and the Move has controllers, a clear benefit.

But, in the end, even if I had any money I don't think I'd be rushing out to buy any of these. Secretly, I'm keeping an eye out for what the Move comes up with as it does look scarily accurate. If it can give us some really good games as well then it may just make it worthwhile. The Kinect, however, will need to do a lot to convince me it is really benefiting the world of gaming. I don't have an X-Box as it is and the Kinect is hardly making me regret my decision to avoid getting one. For now, though, I'll stick to mashing buttons.