Temple Guardian: A Revolution

Here is what I don't understand.

Why do we need some huge revolution gaming-wise? The Wii is trying it with it's motion controller, but why do we need that? What is wrong with normal controllers? Project Natal and the thing Sony is working on, why?

The reason is to "change the way people game", but that isn't revolutionary at all. We've always had some sort of device that we touch and use as a substitute for a controller. Even back in the NES day, we had the Duck Hunt gun. There really is no reason to dump all over normal controllers and go specifically to motion control. Not all games will be able to work with it, while only minor genres have trouble with no pointer (like the strategy genre) but that is slowly improving. We should keep the regular controllers, but encourage good 3rd party substitutes. I assure you the Wii would be more fun if you just used a regular controller and had the option of using a motion control, instead of the opposite way like it is now (which doesn't account for all it's games either).

I hear people complain about playing the same types of games for years. They are normally Wii fans, who welcome the change. That's good and all, but what change? The games are still the same if you look at them like that. Super Mario Galaxy is the same as Super Mario 64. Twilight Princess is the same as Ocarina of Time. Mario Party 4,000 is the same as Mario Party 1. Then this thinking can be stretch to other platforms. Sonic the Hedgehog is the same as Sonic Adventure. Unreal Tournament 3 is the same as Unreal Tournament 99. The Sims 3 is the same as The Sims 2. Fable 2 is the same as Fable 1.

Now I hope you disagreed to some extent with the above comparisons, because that isn't all true. Super Mario Galaxy takes place in the whole universe with different characters and music. Twilight Princess has new concepts and new legends. Mario Party gets updated and better/different games and so on. That isn't because of the controller though, it's the game itself. It isn't the games that are now boring, it's the player's thinking. If you sit down to some action game, and think, "Sigh. A person who is out for revenge and who is a "badass" how boring and predictable, I hate this game," then yes, you're going to hate it. What makes the game memorable and fun, is how it moves, the characters, the story, the rewards, the music, and other little things like that.

Humans are limited in what they come up with. We have to be influenced by an outside source of inspiration. The best example I came up with for that, is trying to think of a new color. That's impossible. The only way that could happen is if scientists found a new material made out of a new color somewhere out in the universe and it was showed to all of us. Then we'd go "Oh yeah!" then start combining that color with colors we do know for new matches. We do try to take other ideas and then put our own spin on them. Little changes like that happen in most games. That is how quick time event began. Companies wanted to try something new, went with that, and are slowly figuring out it isn't so good.

It's always good to try out something new, but some things just don't work. It's too early to tell if the Wiimote concept will be staying or not. People are still in disagreement over it. Microsoft and Sony are cranking their own things out, so we'll have to see over time. It'll be a while too, so be prepared for a long wait.

Besides, thinking so narrowly cuts out all the movies and TV shows as well. As everything is a "recycled plot".

Temple Guardian

A Revolution

Labels