Whilst researching the history of the game controller I found the dynamic between the games and their many controllers of great interest. There is a tendency to just assume a console is developed along with a controller and handed off to developers to make games. Digging a little deeper reveals that all significant control developments are related to the evolution of games themselves. For instance why would we change from a joystick to a dpad? A joystick is an analogue method of control offering variable sensitivity to the user whereas a dpad significantly reduces ones options. At least, that’s what it seems. Surprisingly, the original joysticks were not actually analogue like their flight simulator kin. They were in fact, digital and only offered 4 means of direction meaning it actually made the joystick highly inaccurate due to the possible ambiguity of diagonal movement. Thus the dpad surfaced with the onset of 2D platformers which required accurate inputs in only 4 directions. Although the Nintendo NES is widely regarded as the first dpad, apparently Atari did produce an unsuccessful one first.
In my mind there are a few significant leaps forward in controllers with the change from joystick to dpad being the first before the following change to a truly analogue stick. Next I would say the addition of shoulder buttons and a second analogue stick were rather important. The second analogue stick was developed as a solution to the poor attempts at automated camera control in early games. This is a good example of a problem being solved at the hardware end rather than in the game itself by the developers. Lastly and more recently we have the onset of motion controls and touch screens to consider.
Fittingly, the pioneering face of both technologies is Nintendo. Ironically the company that first populated the joypad has become the first to leave it behind. Actually, is that ironic? I guess you could argue that Nintendo are continuing to innovate and increase level of interaction in games. Unfortunately I tend to disagree. I have to give my subjective opinion on the matter simply because being object isn’t exactly helpful regarding an immersive interactive experience. Unfortunately then I should preface it by saying that I am not a fan of this new direction...
I was there, launch night of the Wii, ready and willing to receive the next evolution of games but unfortunately I was unaware that I would in fact be experiencing the devolution of games, more so an ‘evolution’ in interactive technologies. Nintendo are geniuses, don’t get me wrong, as far business goes the Wii and also the DS absolutely hit the nail on the head. However they gave themselves away right from the start. From the day one the Wii has been unashamedly advertised toward people that don’t play games. The old, the really young, and not that I want to sound sexist, but girls. Nintendo have held true to this mission statement. Admittedly it made them a ton of money but now in the last year, sales have finally started to fall. The Wii was and still is simply a toy. It was the big craze ‘that’ Christmas (and maybe the one after).
In creating a highly accessible controller they have sent games back to their origins in simplicity. Wii sports, for example, whilst fun is about as engaging as a yo-yo. In an age where other games are becomingly increasingly sophisticated and poignant the Wii is in insult to everything real gamers stand for. It has taken years for games to get to such a level of media and entertainment that they now rival even films. Games are less considered as childish and immature (although not totally). But the Wii is doing nothing for that image. I am aware that my opinion is rather elitest. There is of course a place for the Wii in the industry, but I still feel that it is a toy; a gimmick.
As an artist and a consumer I have encountered the social stigma sometimes attached to gaming. The Wii has had both a positive and negative influence on that stigma. The Wii is not a bad thing. Arguably it has done some good in opening some eyes to the world of games. For games themselves though it is almost a step back rather than forwards and in my eyes is paving the way for the evolution of something different, not of games as we know it. My problem is not with the Wii rather it is with Nintendo for advertising the Wii to the public as a toy but to the industry as an evolution of the games we currently play. I feel that this is a mixed message. I sold my Wii after realising that there would never be more than a few games which would have any significant depth to hold my attention for longer than 20 minutes. Admittedly we can blame developers for not making these games but I feel as if Nintendo portrayed the Wii as being able to sustain these types of games when in reality it simply cannot. The control system is not developed enough to allow much more than swinging and pointing. All other controls can be found on normal joypads. Hopefully the Wii’s successor will remedy this if Nintendo really does care about evolving gaming
Lastly I want to touch briefly upon the new development in technology and games that is 3D. What started off as 3D cinema has now spread into modern gaming. There have been attempts in the past to create augmented reality and 3D/ virtual games, but for the first time the technology is stable and affordable enough to become mainstream. It remains to be seen if it will though. Personally I think the use and originality with which it is applied will be a major factor in its uptake. If it simply adds depth to the screen I can’t see it having much longevity but if developers are able to glean some sort of new gameplay element from it there might be life in it after all.
