Ever since the introduction of the Wii and its quick progress from "the follow-up to the GameCube" to "selling like hotcakes", it quickly became apparent that the public was:

1- More keen to get a casual console that's more multiplayer friendly (offline multiplayer)

2- Captivated by innovative ideas that seemed fun

3- Looking for casual, fun games rather than what we know as "hardcore gamers' games"

But what exactly is the difference between a "casual" and "hardcore" game? Well for one, it seems casual games are those that are more catered towards just the fun part of games. (Think Mario Galaxy vs Call of Duty - and yes I know they're not remotely related, that's the point). For another, there seems to be more humor in them, no gore, less seriousness, and simple/cute/innovative gameplay. However what I've mostly noticed is the replay value. For me, mostly, I get a game, and when the storyline finishes, I put it aside and get a new one. That's for FPSs, RPGs, and 3rd person games, among others. Racing games usually last longer but I've still yet to encounter a game I'd have as much fun playing through as the first time, when the intrigue of the story was actually still there. That might just be me, but when I look at those casual games, the ones for the Wii, there's no story (mostly). Wii Sports for example is just an excuse for the gameplay. And it works: the gameplay is insanely fun, especially with someone else, and it has a lot of replay value. I've never been into sports games, generally, but on consoles like the PS3 or 360 I just never found them that fun to play. Or maybe I just never took the time to learn how to play them well. Who knows.

Back on topic though, there's a reason to the easy appeal to the Wii. Obviously, it's the control scheme which just seems like insane fun to anyone who sees an ad for it, rather than see an ad for, say, a PS3 and someone just hitting buttons on a controller. You won't see the appeal in that directly. And now, Sony and Microsoft have decided to take a page out of Nintendo's book and implement motion controls in one form or another for their own consoles. The PS3 motion controller, and Natal for the 360. So far, I'm liking what I'm seeing, but I still fail to know if this is actually going to be a successful transition from gaming input methods as just controllers, to controllers + motion controllers, if people are just going to reject the whole idea and stick to the current methods (if anything, history has shown us that the "if it's not broken, don't fix it" proverb is really true), or if the motion controllers will take over innovation in this industry for years to come. I seriously hope it's not the latter, because while Natal is an ingenious idea, I can't see it being implemented well in games. Of course, seeing as we've seen next to nothing about this, I could very well be dead wrong. Still, just as we've seen with cell phones (touch screens are not enough, you'll always need buttons somewhere) I daresay conventional controllers are here to stay as the norm of input methods.

The PS3 controller so far seems like a good implementation - but if it starts cropping up in every game for no reason, much like the Sixaxis controls, I'm marking it off as annoying. A few conditions have to apply in this case: first, it has to be optional for each and every game. Second, implementation for the sake of implementation is absolute fail, and this is definitely going to happen which is just sad. Third, implementations that fail to actually work will probably be marked off as the same as "implementation for the sake of implementation." Unlike the Wii, for PS3/360 developers, there's no weight on the motion controls. If that fails, there's the normal controller, which their main focus will always be on. Either implement both correctly, or just one correctly. Implementing both and having one, or worse - both, fail is just going to be a nightmare, especially if it happens more than once.

Natal looks amazing, I'll give it that. The mere thought of having a camera register your every move and portray the image onscreen, interacting with the game, is just ingenious. If they manage to pull this off, it could really be something big. It's a lot more ambitious than Sony and Nintendo's attempts, and will therefore likely be seen as the public as the superior - if, and only if, it actually works out like Mircrosoft intends. I can see 360 sales increasing just for that, in fact.

And where is this taking us? Well, it looks like there's two options: first, the motion controllers will be a big hit and continue to be the focus for the next half of this generation and maybe even the next gen. Second, Natal and the PS3 controller could just be an epic fail in implementations in games (probably unlikely) and motion controls will be looked over for quite a while. I'm always going to prefer the conventional way of gaming, it's just what I'm used to and it's more convenient. That said, though, the motion controllers definitely seem like something - something really fun, in fact, but that I can't see lasting too long. Just like the Wii, I get the feeling motion controls are going to get old at most by the end of this generation. They might make way for something else or just die entirely, but I just can't see them standing the test of time right now.

That said, these things haven't even been released yet, and for all I know they could actually become as standard as the normal controllers of today. Final judgement reserved to their releases and the games' implementation of the controls, of course, but I'm merely giving my advance opinion. Hope you enjoyed the blog.