E3 was pretty amazing this year (at least in comparison to the last few). Nintendo did much better than their flop of a show in 2008; mostly thanks to Mario steppin' up to the plate in three different titles, the MotionPlus thingy that is supposed to fix all the shittiness of the Wiimotes, and Team Ninja's Metroid project. Sony had a strong showing with probably the most badass lineup of exclusive titles, a sexy new version of the PSP, some PSN love, and more "proof" that the PS3 is really just getting some steam built up before it takes off (as the other systems age and can't keep up). And Microsoft did well, as usual, by pushing LIVE even further into our real lives (with facebook and twitter on the 360, why do I need a PC anymore?), revealing some cool games, and by announcing a MGS title for it's console (even though it's not a Kojima led effort, they'll take whatever they can get). But the biggest news, which most gamers saw coming since 2006, was all about the motion control tech which Sony and Microsoft showed off.



I was fairly impressed with both, but, as one of the hardcore gamers, Sony's solution to the Wii's inaccuracy and general lack of realism seems much more impressive than Microsoft's full body, controller-less technology. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for innovation, revolutions even, but what I'm not really down with rehashing old ideas using newer/better technology and blatantly ignoring how badly it has failed in the past... which is exactly what Microsoft did with Natal. They took a few different technologies which we've seen before, threw them together in tech demo form for their console, and showed it off to create some hype and "win" this years E3.

Does no one remember that shitty game Totemball that used the 360's camera? It was/is a free title on XBLA, and what you basically do is control a ball with your hands. While rolling around, the ball picks up new pieces of a totem thing that are balanced on top of the ball as you also try to complete little puzzles and get through different levels. In other words, it was a shitty rip off of Katamari Damacy that used these fancy new controls Microsoft was hoping would be "revolutionary" enough to appease the hoards of people wanting to get in on the Wii fad. The only reason I played it as long as I did was for a few achievements when I first got my 360, and since then, it hasn't been touched. Considering that most people I've talked to about it either don't remember it, have never heard of it, or hated it, I'd say that it failed pretty miserably. And furthermore, since no one else followed in their footsteps, I think Microsoft (and just about everyone else) agrees that it was a failed effort.



If that isn't a good enough reason to question this new technology, how about those 3D, virtual reality games that amusement parks have. You get in there, box/fight for a while, and leave after a few minutes feeling stupid, sore, and unfulfilled. The problem with motionless tech is this: we want to touch something. Whether it is a controller acting as a skateboard, tennis racket, or golf club, it's nice to have something real there to help us out. And who doesn't get a sort of sick satisfaction from the feedback of a body, drum, or punching bag as our hands slam into something. And aren't the arcade games where you get to hold the real looking guns way cooler to play than the ones with joysticks and buttons? So, from whence did the idea of controllerless technology come from and who ever made it seem like an appealing idea?

To expand on their demo, and question the next faucet of it... who has ever had a great, satisfying experience with those speech and facial recognition programs? I've got them on my laptop, and every time I try to use one or the other to log in, type, or do pretty much anything, I have to try several times to do anything with them. You either can't get the right light, cut down on enough background noise, or get your facial expression or voice inflection just right for it to work like it's supposed to. So, if it won't work on my new gaming laptop, which is more powerful than the 360, how well will it translate to the living room experience? Sure, it won't be moving around, so hopefully the lighting differences and background noise won't vary too terribly much. But if it is the non-gamer audience that they are targeting, after just a few frustrating run-ins with Natal, they will give up. They don't have the patience to stick with it, they don't have a reason to keep trying if it's frustrating, and they won't try again after each firmware update.

And what about the hardcore gamers? You know, the people that this gaming market has been built upon and who buy all the new games, gadgets, and updates as they come out (often at full price, and sometimes through insanely long lines and frustrating setup times). We're the ones who have figured out a way to bowl from the comfort of our favorite recliner, golf while slouched in bed, and play tennis while hunched over in a computer chair. Does Microsoft think that their controllerless technology will inspire us to stand up and move around the living room to play "football?" Or skate on a non-existent skateboard? Or smack balls into a wall with our body? Sure, it's fun to show off on Late Night TV and get people excited about buying and playing with it... but do we really want our game company's focused on who can create the next dusty Monopoly game that sits in a closet until enough of our bored friends come over wanting to kill time?



I don't know... maybe I'm just a skeptical asshole, but watching Jimmy Fallon and the demo team suck at the games on live TV just didn't inspire me to want to drop however much money it will cost so I can wave my hands around to use the menu, talk to my Xbox to turn it on or off, or use my body to make my players move. As far as I'm concerned, being able to do all that while relaxing from the comfort of my couch and only moving my thumbs and a few fingers is a much bigger accomplishment. Hell, even a revolution... Especially if I could just use a DualShock3 to get the rest of my work done for the night.