TVG OPINION: Joypad RIP: 1980 - 2010 Feature

First of all, let's congratulate Nintendo.  Since the early days of the Game & Watch back in 1980, Nintendo has pioneered the joypad in some shape or form and successfully managed to evolve the way we play games with virtually every iteration of new hardware.

With a design as ergonomically unfriendly as a brick (albeit with 80s chic), the NES joypad with its relatively modest array of a d-pad and two buttons set the standards for others to follow - something that would happen repeatedly throughout history.  The jump to 16-bit hardware saw the SNES introduce shoulder buttons and four face buttons - features still used to the present day.  And of course, where would we be without the groundbreaking introduction of the Nintendo64's analogue stick?  The less said about the GameCube pad the better, but its failure and lack of ambition possibly provided the catalyst for Nintendo's engineers to go back to the drawing board.

And then they went and changed everything.

Of course we've had spectacular failures when companies have tried to deviate away from what Nintendo lays down.  Atari's decision to put a phonepad assortment of buttons on the Jaguar pad was bizarre, but in all likelihood it was Atari's collapse as an outfit that cemented the format's failure as opposed to the bizarrely designed joypad specifically.  Although we're fond of the Dreamcast, the lack of a second analogue stick and the decision to put so much faith behind the gimmicky VMU ultimately left it feeling slightly at odds and flagging behind the competition.

Although the general gist is to follow what Nintendo does, there has been one notable exception in the shape of Sony's DualShock with its addition of a second analogue stick - it's hard to imagine playing a game without two sticks nowadays.  So let's give a little credit to Sony for that one. 

Finally we arrive at the current generation of hardware, which undoubtedly has reached a plateau of gaming greatness.  Although Microsoft started off on shaky ground with the atrociously designed 'Duke' controller, you'll find few people that don't like the feel of the 360 pad with its comfortable layout and smooth shoulder triggers.  Equally, after threatening to change things with a banana shaped controller that defied all logic, Sony saw sense and finally put everything into the subtly evolved DualShock 3 - even if it did take a little while to arrive.

But then they had to go and change everything completely.

We'll admit, we never imagined the Wii Remote would prove to be so popular; but few did.  Breaking down the barriers of complex button arrangements and defying the need for gamers to grow a third hand for the introduction of a third analogue stick, the Wii Remote was designed to appeal to a new audience - to say they succeeded would be an understatement on par with claiming Wii Fit is quite popular. 

Yet at the same time, the success led to a vocal group of traditional core gamers beginning to feel slightly alienated, a fear that was only heightened by the link between the Wii Remote and the rise of casual games to suit the new audience of fitness fanatics and Wii waggling geriatrics.  For people like us who've grown up with games, the joypad has become something of a natural evolution of the human hand; we're quite at home with our thumbs clasped firmly on a stick and fingers hovering above a myriad of buttons.  The problem for us, and core gamers we're sure, is that the runaway success of the Wii Remote is about to change the landscape of controllers, and more specifically video games, completely.

You couldn't help but notice Microsoft and Sony's attempt to join the hip-shaking, hand-waving, party during this week's E3.  It was everywhere.  A demonstration from the ever-charismatic conjurer Peter Molyneux was enough to sell Microsoft's vision of the future with Project Natal.  It worked.  Project Natal, with a little help from Steven Spielberg, appeared everywhere, in places you'd normally not expect to see video games coverage.  It made the papers; it was heavily featured on the BBC; even Boris Johnson was allegedly talking about it over his bowl of cornflakes the following morning.

The truth is, as Molyneux himself will readily admit, Project Natal and the accompanying Milo demonstration utilised one or two tricks that gamers have come to expect from the man who promises much and occasionally under delivers.  It all sounded a little too much like the Wizard of Oz for us, which is further reinforced by reports that a Lionhead rep was busily working behind the scenes with a controller.  Yet it was enough to convince the mainstream to buy into this vision, that and the fact that Spielberg had put his weight behind it.  Such mainstream acceptance and coverage will have inevitably added an extra few digits to Microsoft's investment behind the project.  "This is the future," claimed an excitable Don Mattrick lighting up like a fruit machine on a bumper payout - allegedly.

The logic behind it is simple, Nintendo has succeeded in expanding its audience with the Wii Remote; Microsoft and Sony both naturally want their share of the highly desirable pie with many flavours.  Will they follow exactly the same model and deliver not only an accessible controller, but also games to suit the new audience? Will Lionhead's budget now be split between 'Fable' and 'Xbox Health'?  Will Rare accept that they're just not what they used to be and focus on the games that your mum and dad want to play?

As core gamers ourselves, we're a little scared by this vision and just how enthusiastically the three hardware giants are jumping on the bandwagon.  It's a fear of change, but surely, change is only needed when things are broken in the first place.  Is the video games industry really that out of order that we all need to start waving our hands around like loonies instead of keeping them on a pad?  If it's not broke... and all; besides I quite enjoy sitting on my arse when I'm playing.

Despite our reservations, we have to appreciate the fact that Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony are looking into revolutionising WHAT and HOW we play games.  Even though revolution is a buzz word for gamers and we're always keen to demand it, perhaps sometimes revolutions can be a little too strong.  Has the car industry ever seriously contemplated vehicles without wheels; will Coca Cola ever contemplate a 'New Coke'.  Some things just simply shouldn't change, and it's usually a vocal minority (us) that makes this point known.

We got into video games because of the skill that was required to be any good at them.  Performing pixel-perfect jumps with Mario or learning the command for Ryu's Shoryuken until it became imprinted on our psyche is what drove our addiction, it was a challenge of dextrous skill, a feat of flurried finger action that separated the proverbial men from the boys. 

Is breaking down the barriers and lowering the accessibility level of how we play games directly linked to a dumbing down of the skills (or should that be skillz, I'm old) that's needed from a video game?  Of course there are more factors to this then just the joypad issue; we doubt even the most ardent Modern Warfare fan would put up with the frustrating difficulty of the classics from yesteryear - Ghouls n Goblins or Battletoads anybody?  The simple fact is games aren't as challenging as they used to be, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.  Unless you're a kid you probably don't have too much time to play, and video game publishers need you to buy as many games as possible instead of spending months trying to complete one.

The point here is whether what we like to call the traditional core game is beginning to get marginalised, and whether motion-sensitive controllers and experiences will help or hinder this.  Sure, we'll admit more people playing video games can only be a good thing, and we like seeing our grans enjoying Wii Sports bowling as much as the next man - who wouldn't?  But we do have a fear that with budgets being allocated to such sections, it might come at the cost of the games we core gamers tend to prefer.

Sure we can't imagine the likes of Infinity Ward or Epic Games ditching their controllers, but this in turn taps into a wider predicament.  Even the biggest core games are easily outsold by the likes of Wii Play and Wii Fit, which cost a fraction of the price to develop compared to your Gears of Wars and Modern Warfares.

So this brings into question the validity of what we call the traditional video game, and for this we have to look at the economics behind the situation.  Like any industry, the video games industry is driven by the laws of business - supply and demand - perhaps a little too much for what should be a creative industry, but that's another topic.  But when the profit margins on core games continue to shrink, you have to question: if expanding the market with new types of gamers is the key, will they buy into traditional blockbuster games with Nadal controls, or is it all about the type of games that are offered.

Even if Project Natal, MotionPlus, and Sony's PS Eye evolution manage to exceed expectations and deliver a control setup that is as responsive and direct as a joypad, we still ask ourselves, do we really want to play like this?  Do I really want to be kicking air when I'm playing FIFA 11 or pretend I'm holding onto a steering wheel when I'm racing around Laguna Seca in Gran Turismo 6?  How on earth I'm meant to play Modern Warfare 3 or Halo: Mission To Mars, I have no idea, but I'm not exactly keen on the idea of holding aloft a virtual gun and running on the spot.

Although the technology is vastly superior, this all just reminds me of the massive disappointment I encountered with SEGA's first attempt with motion-sensors with the Activator (Samba de Amigo that followed was a vastly superior effort).  You probably won't remember what was the first of a long line of hardware failures from SEGA, but take it from me - you didn't miss out on much.

Perhaps I just lack the creative vision at this stage; perhaps I'm just an ageing gamer that is afraid of change.  Although part of me is excited by the thought of a new way of playing that verge on the realms of Sci-Fi, I do worry that the next generation of consoles won't even feature joypad ports.

I suppose this boils the dilemma down to whether Project Natal, MotionPlus, and PS Eye have an application in the 'core' game, or merely with the new types of experiences that will suit the expanded audiences.  It could be argued that Nintendo's example has led to a focus on the new type of game to suit their new type of audience (although they did manage to reprieve themselves with two new Mario titles and a Metroid outing).  Will Sony's experiment be like EyeToy and SingStar before it; successfully expanding the PlayStation audience or will we have to swing batons around our head as Kratos slams the Blades of Athena into Eros' chest in God of War: A New Beginning?

Out of all of them, Microsoft's vision is the most extraordinary and we're inclined to believe they're going to put the most weight behind it.  I will admit to a certain degree of trouser wetting at the possibilities of blurring reality and virtual reality; passing Milo a piece of paper transcended the gap, which was awesome despite having more smoke and mirrors than Kate Moss backstage.  Perhaps it's this that core gamers have to latch onto; the thought that Project Natal could usher in an entirely new type of game experience.
But it's the skill question that we have to come back to.  Can motion-sensitive games really capture the demands that are made by twitch-paced first-person-shooters or precise combinations of buttons and sticks that Street Fighter IV requires?

As the grandfather of Tetris, Alexey Pajitnov, recently stated, "You have to have 99.9 percent accuracy, if it's 98.9 it's no good."