Do Innovative Controllers Stifle Real Innovation in Gaming?

Innovative hardware schemes are all the rage these days, but are they giving developers too much to deal with?

[Shadonic]

Nope not really changeing something thats been the set norm for so many years actully can force developers to innovate in their games.

[shutUpAndTakeMyMoney]

Innovative doesn't equal better.

Controllers & mouses work fine for me.

[Shadonic]

who said it equals better just saying if you change something signeficent like the controller the developers will be forced to innovate in their games to work with the device thir using its like if i was head of GM and just out of nowhere desided to change the wheel to a tablet or something again not saying its better just that its going to kind of force developers to innovate.

[KwietStorm_BLM]

And at the same time, it can force developers to work around that motion device, which depending on the situation, can also alter the vision they really wanted, all for the sake of going with what hot at the moment.

[ACEMANWISE]

In theory no. In execution yes.

[Yodagamer]

I think innovative controllers are good and well, but a console needs to come with a standard array of buttons. I think nintendo themselves realized this as they included standard buttons on the new wii u controller.

[nolifeking]

I say yes. All "innovative" controls do is give you a new way to do the same old things, which, to me, distracts from actual new ways to interact with games.

[maelstromb]

Developers have to work around the hardware provided and the games created should be a reflection of the hardware and software working effortlessly in tandem with one another. In the past when developers were working with much more simplified systems & peripherals, if for whatever reason that symbiotic relationship could not be achieved, the flaws in the designs of the hardware would very quickly become apparent, and they would subsequently be phased out before the general populace could even get a true glimpse.

Now a days, however, with game development being as complex as it has ever been and with productions costs easily soaring into the millions, it takes a considerable amount of time to develop new peripherals and see if they will actually catch on and prove viable; essentially casting us consumers as the long-term guinea pigs.

Having said all of that, I can see why it becomes quite easy to decry "innovative" peripherals, such as the Wii-mote, as "gimmicky." But without hardware manufacturers, like Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft, pushing boundaries and shaping how we view, play, experience and consume games, I believe the videogames industry would collapse in on itself. After all, games are an ever-changing, ever-evolving form of technology, and technology's inherent purpose is about pushing forward into the unknown, defying the expected and ultimately, creating useful advancements for the future.

So my answer to this article's question is a resounding, "No. I do not believe innovative controllers stifle innovation in gaming." I believe that they do the exact opposite, and if they do fail to strike a chord with a large portion of the consumer demographic, they inevitably outlive their usefulness and get phased out--as sort of a natural progression. It remains to be seen where Sony's Move and Microsoft's Kinect will stand in terms of their longevity, but I wouldn't write either of them off just yet. This next generation of hardware, like Nintendo's Wii U and its tablet-like controller, just may determine where games will go next, and if successful, will potentially redefine the medium itself. It's an exciting time to be alive and to be a gamer, that's for sure!

[rainslacker]

I honestly don't know why this generation has felt the need to push innovative ways to play games, namely motion control. Nintendo innovated with the gamepad, and it was probably the best thing they ever did for the NES. It was simple and easy to use with precise control...something that joysticks lacked at the time.

Motion control was an obvious step in new ways to control games, but I believe it just came too soon with the Wii. It was certainly successful, but the technology just wasn't ready to really push the boundaries of gameplay itself. Instead it was mostly just wave your hands around to make the character do stuff. Sometimes it was implemented well, and other times it was just boring. Move was a step up as far as precision goes, but in the end it resulted in the same thing...and there was very little to no innovation on the gameplay side of things.

I can say the same thing with the Wii U controller. As of yet I've seen nothing that says to me this will be a great way to play games for a home console, outside of a fun hide and seek game on Nintendoland. I found it harder to just start up a game and play it than just using on screen menus. This is of course just implementation, so maybe something big will come out of it when developers actually start to care about it.

[lilbroRx]

So this article outright dismiss new controller options as real innovation?

This pure twisted bias I see these days is ridiculous. This is a worthless article.