Epic Sticking With Classic Controllers For Now

Cliff Bleszinski, design director for Epic Games, said in an interview with Develop that while motion control schemes like Project Natal look interesting, Epic will probably be sticking with classic controllers "for the foreseeable future." He said, "Microsoft came down a few weeks before E3 and gave us a demo, and they're now shipping out the dev kits; I think it's great. When you start combining the motion-capture, the facial recognition, and the vocal recognition you can create some unique experiences. And of course more accessibility is always a good thing. When you build an interface like that though you need to [specifically] design a game for it. It can't just be tacked on."

Doesn't make sense

[HalAtWork]

Sure, but one area the Wiimote has always made sense is first person shooters and other games that require you to target objects. Why doesn't Epic think Natal could work in its games?

Re:That makes two of us

[PyroMosh]

I was going to write a reply, but then I realized it didn't make as good a point as what I summed up already here [slashdot.org], so I just copy/pasted below:

I love Nintendo, and other than the PC, I only own Nintendo consoles. But the Wii's biggest problem is that waggle is not fun in and of itself. Developers (Nintendo included, though they are a lesser offender) need to get that through their heads. If it adds to a game, (Mario Kart) use it! If not (Mario Galaxy, most other titles), don't! A great compromise is what they did with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. You can use several control schemes, including one for the GameCube controller, or for the "Classic Controller" that uses no waggle at all.

Basically, Wii controls should be used for three things:

1. On screen analog pointing. For god's sake though, give me the option of using the D-pad, or analog stick if your game only uses on screen pointers for the menu!
2. Extremely analog actions, which lend themselves to a tilting motion. Marble Mania, Super Monkey Ball single player mode, driving games, and flying games lend themselves to this type of action.
3. Mimicking action gestures, where the gameplay doesn't require much beyond those gestures. Wii Tennis is a great example of this. You don't need to do much more than swing at the ball. But games where you need to perform an action like that, and then return to a completely different control paradigm are poorly thought out. That's not immersive. That's the opposite of immersive.

There are probably others that I can't think of, but my larger point is this: I should never be able to swap waggle for a simple button press, without loosing a degree of control. If I can, give me a fucking button. Zelda: Twilight Princess' spin attack is a great example of that. No reason it had to be waggle related. I will give some leeway for "satisfying" waggle. In the same game, swinging the remote to swing a sword just feels right, though I would love it if it had more control.

If you are a Wii developer, and you are developing a Wii game. Ask yourself this: "If I added a menu to allow players to remap their controls, would the game loose something if a player remapped Wii-specific controls?" If the answer is no, you should not be using waggle. You should be using buttons. And that's okay! Buttons are okay too!

That said, I have to disagree with you. It's not a gimmick, although I agree that it's mostly used in a gimmicky way so far. It's just a new tool in the inventory. I'll agree that it will never take the place of buttons (Natal), but Nintendo's hybrid implementation on the Wii (or something very much like it) seems like an indication of the direction of controller evolution to me.

The challenge now is getting developers to understand when to use it, and when not to, and more importantly that if the game doesn't need it, DON'T USE IT.