[Editor's Note: We're not just a (rad) news site -- we also publish opinions/editorials from our community & employees like this one, though be aware it may not jive with the opinions of Destructoid as a whole, or how our moms raised us. Want to post your own article in response? Publish it now on our community blogs.]
Videogames have always involved one thing: sitting in front of a screen with very little movement involved. In fact, gaming is arguably one of the most sedentary activities one can participate in. That's what makes it comfortable, that's what makes it accessible, and what gives it the power to turn 20 something year old athletes into obese 40-year-old shut-outs.
What is this power that videogames possess? They're simple and easy to understand. They take us into another reality of sorts, allow us to kill everything from terrorists and aliens to giant stacks of pancakes. They put us behind the wheel of Ferrari's, F-16's and giant robots. This fact alone is what makes videogames what they are. Windows into worlds we will never realistically experience with mortal eyes.
But for all the immersion games might offer, we as gamers still demand more. Better graphics weren't enough. Complicated 40 button controllers didn't do it either, nor did cameras, plastic peripherals or avatars. As humans, we always want to push the boundaries of technology and the human mind, and as such, some question if we will ever be satisfied. So what's the next development in our quest for the ultimate immersion?
Motion control. More specifically, full body control. And even more specifically, human controlled.
What do I mean by human controlled? Simple. Games controlled directly by us. Not by a controller, not by buttons and accelerometers, but by our actions, by our words and even by our expressions. A videogame controlled by the very thing that makes us human. This is where the future is heading.
The big question is, do you want it? Do you need it? And what will it change?
Since the technology is still not available, no one can truly answer these questions. But we can always make assumptions, can we not? First, let's examine just what the technology behind the beginning stages of human-controlled gaming is. The faces of this innovation, so to speak.
Project Natal
Project Natal, as I'm sure most of you are aware, is Xbox 360's foray into the human control genre. The device not only reads various points of articulation on your own full body, but also recognizes the sound and tone of your voice, the movement of your hands, and can recognize various outside objects placed in front of the system.
This is what human control is. Natal requires no buttons, nothing but a person and some imagination. Natal turns the player into the controller, and suddenly, the line between the two is suddenly erased. Interactivity is now more than just a buzz word, it actually has a solid definition in the gaming world. True interactivity can be achieved through Natal, but what exactly will that mean?
In order to understand, we should take a look at the other player in this controller-free game.
Sony Motion
Or whatever they wind up calling it. Sony's entry into human control is a bit more involved than Microsoft's, but ultimately works with the same ides. The system is theoretically capable of all the same feats as Natal (although the final features have yet to be finalized), along with several other unique additions.
Sony Motion can use the DualShock 3 controller in conjunction with the PS3 Eye and various objects, such as baseball bats. With the addition of a microphone attachment, it can also detect emotions and pitch in the voice of the user and react accordingly. The wand controller can detect motion more accurately than that of a standalone camera system or even the Wii remote, a solid feature for the package.
So, in essence, Microsoft and Sony have the exact same ideas implemented in slightly different ways. They both aim for true immersion. But with all this talk and technology, we have to answer a critical question before we commit to these ideas.
Is this even a good idea?
Gaming has always involved traditional controllers, buttons and occasionally specialized controllers or cameras as secondary devices. But the main device has always been that piece of plastic with the colored buttons. But that device is capable of so many things. Mathematically, the number of combinations that can be achieved on a controller are infinite.
But in contrast, the number of movements that the human body is capable of is severely limited. We can kick, punch, duck and jump, but even with variations of each we can only achieve a fraction of the combinations of a controller. Fighting games would be limited to 5 or 10 punches, kicks or grabs. Action games would have the same number of combos by the limited nature of this system.
In short, we gain immersion but lose precision.
And that's the biggest flaw with mot ... sorry, human control. Lack of precision. No matter how advanced out technology gets, the human body is still only capable of so much. Games that involve this can never truly be what every other traditional game has managed to surpass in the years of gaming evolution. To put it bluntly, gaming's biggest innovation is it's biggest limitation.
And that's why this whole idea of innovation just isn't right for gaming. It may have it's uses in casual games and sure, there are some legitimately cool things being done with it, but ultimately it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that will ever be plausible for mainstream gaming. Call of Duty without a controller? Not so much.
Human controlled gaming could very well change the way we play games, but we need to remember that change isn't always good. The Wii changed the way we played games, but as any fan of the first person shooter will tell you, this change was a very mixed bag. Yet, some games have benefited greatly from the inclusion of human controlled gaming's little brother, notably games like the ever popular Wii Sports.
So what does the future hold for the human controller? Only time will tell if this trend will become popular, or fall victim to the likes of the EyeToy or the Power Glove. Great pieces of technology that failed in their execution. Or will these devices usher in a new era of gaming?
Of course, the biggest answer to this question is you.
Contest:
4:30 PM on 01.15.2010 | 
Everyone relates it to EyeToy since it's camera based, but it's a hell of a lot more advanced. And in theory, Sony's is also based on the EyeToy. The camera is an integral part of their multi part system. That wand is only 1/4th to 1/8th of the whole picture. And their ideas haven't been tested either beyond the wand and camera. Facial and voice recognition, item recognition and multi system integration (controller+cam+mic+wand) are all pretty much new as a whole to the gaming industry.
I'm interested in Natal since it's an all in one deal, but mainly I just want to see interactive pieces, not necessarily games. Natal seems better at that, but Sony's motion seems slightly more geared towards games.
In the end though I have doubts as to whether either will ever be practical for anything aside from being a fantastic tech demo.
I also remember the video with Sony's remote being tracked by their own camera, but the difference is that it's not ONLY a camera on their end. You've got those physical buttons, and you have something to actually hold as you make the gestures for the in-game actions. It just seems like it'll work a lot better than not having anything other than your body movements.
I'm not saying Natal is going to suck. I'm just saying that I don't see it working nearly as well as the alternative(s). Then again, I've never used it, and I don't like to write things off completely without trying them first.
... there is a lot to be said for gaming on your butt! (and swinging your body around to shoot a gun will just never be as accurate as a standard controller)
I rembember at CES they had this TV without a remote and basically you would use hand gestures to bring up different options like turn the volume up and down, change channels etc.
In theory it sounded wonderful but in practise if you were on channel 1 and your favourite TV program was on channel 49 you would have to flick your wrist 48 times to get to that channel.
These so called solutions won't work because of the effort reuqired to just play a damn game.
Imagine spending an hour or two playing a game where you are constantly moving various parts of your body just to make it work.
To make matters worse if you were playing an FPS and you used your hands as a sort of gun by putting your arms together and joining your hands how good would your accuracy be in the game?
The fact that they are implementing these solutions when they had no plans for them and even attacked the idea behind motion control just shows they are desperately trying to capture the Wiis marketshare.
Motion/body control is one of those ideas that looks good on paper but doesn't work out too well in reality. Sure there are always going to be gimmicky games (simple sports games, rail shooters, etc) that can benefit from such controls, but can you really tell me that such a control system would work in game like Bayonetta or Street Fighter? Even if motion controls were accurate enough to detect complex human movement (which they aren't), you would have to be near the level of an Olympic athlete to perform the same moves the characters in these action games are doing.
Video games are fun because they let you enter strange worlds where you (the character) can do things normally not possible and, at the same time, you don't suffer any real life consequences. There is simply no way I would be able to pull off the moves Ryu can in Street Fighter, let alone those of Ryu from Ninja Gaiden in real life without becoming winded after a few minutes.
Whats more realistic... (Whats the current Buzzword? Immersion?) Flying a plane by swinging your arms, or by using a controller?
The PS3 and 360 are just expanding their markets. Desperate to grab the Wii audience? In case you haven't noticed, the Wii isn't exactly selling software very well these days and considering its large lead in hardware sales, that's just pathetic.
Perhaps SONY and MS began development in the fear that if they didn't and the Wii was a great success and industry changer that they'd be left behind, but now, I think both companies are going to realize that there is not only no rush, but practically no need for them to even release these products at all, though they will since they've come this far.
If you want to get really technically anal about it, the human has always controlled the controller, which in turn controls the game. Which is why games have controls to begin with. With the things encompassed with Natal and Sony Motion, you're essentially translating your own human abilities into the game world. So instead of a button combo determining the onscreen action, your physical body is.
@artha14
The Wiimote is all infared based, which is why it also can't be used around major light sources (I had a hell of a time with natural lighting from the windows interfering). The Sony Motion setup sounds more like a combination between infared and camera tracking, along with everything else.
with motion control the controlmechanism is always present
!!!but!!!
Yesterday i played GRAW2 with a buddy. And all the time i Thought by myself why i couldnt point on several objects/foes with the hand of the caracter iam playing? That totally changed my mind about natal. Imagine you play the game with the controller but you can youse the hands of the caractors to point. Whould be much more precise than describing under fire from where the foes are coming. All the more when your team isnt speaking the same language.
This would be more like 'we dont build up a game especially for natal' its more like 'how could natal make us interact better in existing game types'!
No one forces you to play for hours and hours. You don't HAVE to eat junk food while lying on said couch.
If you continue to eat well, you won't have to worry about the weight put on, just exercise in general for basic stuff like, oh, muscular atrophy.
And even then...personal responsibility. You could choose to play a game for only a half hour and take a break, go for a walk or something.
Hell, I'm in great shape and I play a ridiculous amount of games (my Live gamerscore alone is past the 50,000 mark and I don't work in the games industry).
But I do little things. Like not chomping down junk food while I game.
Let's say I'm playing MW2, where most of us do end up playing for hours. I'll get up between matches and have a pull up bar set up. I'll do a quick ten pullups while the match is loading. Maybe I'll do a quick couple of pushups to get the blood flowing.
Not to say everyone needs to go out and set up a pull up bar near their entertainment center. The point is you have a choice.
You could get up and stretch during loads. You could pause the game and do other things like some quick cleaning or something just to get some motion going.
Remember to keep shifting how your sitting instead of staying like a lump. (Here's a scary thought, my wife is a nurse and reminds me that if people sit in one position too long, the older you get the more you risk getting a blood clot in your legs)
Point is, for all the types of games I play, be it solo or multi, I'm still getting some movement in, sometimes in small ways, sometimes in big ways. Enough I don't have a gut despite playing way more hours of games than I should.
But it's not the game's responsibility that I make the effort anymore than it's Titantics fault for obese people because so many watched the movie and it was three hours in length.
Just like all other things in life, people who got lazy or treated their bodies bad look to blame everything but themselves. But if you got not only fat, but obese...your fault. Or perhaps you'd like to also throw in a lazy thyroid to the excuses as well? (Remember, there's no fat people in Ethiopia)
Games did not cause it. You being overindulgent and irresponsible in your usage of gaming did it.
RenagadePanda, this wasn't meant as some attack at you. Just where it started off about games and lack of exercise made me think of how trendy this last decade has been all over the news to use videogames as a scapegoat to why so many American kids are fat.
It's not games, it's terrible and neglectful parents along with kids growing up with no sense of self responsibilty.
On the other stuff, I agree with you in that I think all this stuff, these "innovations" will go the way of motion control on a PS3 controller. A year of gimmicks to be laughed at ten years later.