I've been drawing all my life, and started experimenting with digital art in 2008. My conclusion is that using a mouse to draw in a traditional manner is often cumbersome and slow, and usually leads to many errors and much time wasted redrawing and correcting. However, when doing certain kinds of pixel art, or when drawing straight lines, a pen & tablet can be bothersome and the mouse is the way to go.
Oh, yeah, there's definitely cases where a mouse is very useful. I think that goes back to my original point, if you're using the right tool for the job, then all is well. It's when you try to do the job with one style of input that is better suited to another that you run into trouble. (I've been drawing for all my life, too, although I haven't done much in the last couple of years. I'm still stuck on pencil-and-paper, and I'm not terrible, but I don't have much variability in what I'm able to draw, unlike my brother.)
The same sort of thing applies to video games. Traditional controllers and motion controllers should be applied to functionality that they are suited for, rather than the other way around.
Very much agreed with this. The inputs themselves aren't the problem, it's how they're used.
I.S.T. brings up a very important aspect of gaming with motion controllers: Not everyone wants to or is capable of using motion controllers, and forcing a Player to use it is terrible design. Games are supposed to be accessible to all. Technology should empower rather than limit.
If I may play devil's advocate here, though... traditional gaming controllers are a huge barrier to non-gamers. I've come across lots of people that wouldn't dare pick up a controller because it looks insanely complicated to them. And ironically, they're kinda right. We gamers that have grown up in the hobby have had time (at least from my personal experience) to move from the two-primary-button NES controller to the 6-button SNES to the Dual Shock, and all the spinoffs in between. We've had more time to adjust. They haven't. To us, a traditional controller may be empowering, because we can look at a game, and see where things would work just fine with a traditional controller. Non-gamers, likely, will not see that, and the motion controls might seem more intuitive.
Just a thought. I'm certainly not a fan of shoehorning in motion or touch or whatever "just because", but there are cases where I think it's central to the vision of the software. When that's the case, I'm totally okay with forcing motion controls.
Remember when Crimson Dragon was initially slated to be a Kinect exclusive title? Not only was that a pointless decision, but in a way it was a statement: "Traditional controllers never really worked with Panzer Dragoon games."
I'm glad they realized their mistake and chose to implement controller functionality.
Didn't Crimson Dragon
turn out kinda iffy, anyway? Playing the part of a contrarian for just a moment (wheeeee!), I can actually see where a rail shooter might benefit quite well from motion controls if done correctly. The Wii certainly did quite well with rail shooters. I can see the Wii remote being quite ideal for a game like Panzer Dragoon
, and it's one of those series where, as good as they are, it just begs
for a mouse- or stylus-style input device.