Motion controls in gaming: what were Wii thinking?

It’s coming up to six years since Nintendo unleashed its questionably named white box upon the casual-gaming masses, and ever since then there’s been something of a motion revolution. Gone are the days of going outside for your movement-based activities; it’s time to push all your furniture to the corner of the room and flail in front of your TV until you can barely move. Is this really what modern gaming has come to?

There’s a large portion of gamers who are hardly complaining; Microsoft’s bodily controlled Kinect sold 8 million units in its first 60 days, with a further 10 million sold by January 2012. What’s more, the next generation of consoles opens with motion control in the form of the (once again, questionably named) Wii U on November 30th.

So why is it that the popularity of these gimmicky gadgets has yet to wane?

As you may already have guessed, the answer to this question comes harder to me than it does to others. Surely gaming can only be really immersive if the player can be allowed to relax into it, for the same reason that you never see anyone reading a book while jumping around their bedroom. Ironically, waggling a wiimote or swinging an imaginary baseball bat can actually take you out of the experience more than a good ol’ handheld controller ever did before.

This is, of course, my opinion against that of the casual gamer who would rather have something more accommodating than substantial. But while the party-game antics may appeal to this particular audience, motion control, with a few notable exceptions, hasn’t brought nearly enough innovation to the hardcore gaming market. In fact, in several ways it has arguably been detrimental to its progression. Microsoft’s pandering to its new device has resulted in the bastardization of one of its most successful franchises, in Fable: the Journey.

What’s more, gaming’s image as a whole has suffered. Several titles of this generation, such as LA Noire and Heavy Rain, have sought to bring maturity and depth to a medium still very much in its infancy. By contrast, the Kinectimal craziness and endless repetition of those God-awful Mario Party games (as well as their copycats) have brought public opinion back to that square one idea: that gaming is just for kids. Motion gaming, in my eyes, achieves this more than any gory shoot-’em-up or Grand Theft Auto game, and while it might have earned a new following from the aforementioned casual players, it may also have alienated those with more sophisticated tastes.

My main problem isn’t that the technology is more expensive than it’s worth. It’s not that it often doesn’t work or that the focus on social play can negatively influence the single player experience. It’s that the industry has mounted the motion gaming bandwagon but left so much dignity behind in its tracks that it ends up looking silly. A Playstation Move game named Kung Fu Rider, in which players slide down busy Hong Kong streets on an office chair, serves to illustrate my point.

My overriding argument is that gaming must take the next step in order to advance, rather than wallow in the doldrums of a sea of shovelware. Motion gaming has set a standard too low for this generation to effectively take the medium to the next level, and will continue to be a hindrance unless some use can be found for it beyond Just Dance 3.

But what am I saying? When December rolls around the hordes will descend on their little plastic cameras and remotes, and feast on mediocrity once more. Bah, humbug.