I recently read an article on Serious Games Source and wholeheartedly disagreed with most of it. Since I wrote a lengthy argument against the letter, I thought it would be worth posting here. If you don’t want to read the actual article by Ian Bogost, here’s a rundown of the major points I had contention with:
- Games for the Wii have not made good use of the remote beyond being a gimmick.
- The remote actually limits the potential experiences more so than a standard controller.
- Pressing a button is more intuitive then performing an associated motion.
- Pressing a button produces more of an impact on the player than performing a motion.
- Since the Wii can play games from older formats like the 8-bit NES, developers should look into those consoles as a means of making cheap games that are stripped of next-gen trappings.
Wow, difficult as it was, I made it through that summary without breaking into my arguments ahead of time. Okay, so here is what I wrote to the editor concerning the article (there was no direct email link to the author):
”First, the author disparages many games available for the Wii as being updated versions of existing game franchises. Yet he doesn't seem to understand that this is the nature of the game business. Companies learn incrementally, and preferably in a manner that does not risk financial ruin. Hence the proliferation of existing IP on a new console. I think many of these companies should be applauded for the changes they have made. laceName>TraumalaceName> laceType>CenterlaceType>: Second Opinion has been hailed as superior to its Nintendo DS counterpart, and Rayman Raving Rabbids is a daring departure from the franchise's platform roots that creates a large series of mini-games that have been regarded as making innovative use of the Wii remote.
The author then declares that the remote could limit the console's ability to create some kinds of experiences. Even reading his arguments, I cannot fathom why he believes this. On a mechanical level, the remote offers far more control options than a standard console controller (remember, it has multiple buttons and a directional pad, and can be paired with the nunchuk device to further add an analog control, two more buttons, and motion sensitivity). On a control level, the pointing-device capability of the remote is a far more powerful input option than a standard analog stick. After quickly "typing" my name (by pointing at letters) to create a Mii profile, I found using the xbox's analog stick to navigate a letter menu to feel slow and archaic.
Bogost then makes the baffling assertion that pressing a button is a more intuitive means of expressing intent then mimicking the actual gestures one instinctively performs with the remote. He apparently hasn't witnessed the ever-growing intimidation potential game players experience when faced with learning the 10 or more buttons required to play many modern console games. Associating a particular button with a completely unrelated onscreen behavior has long been a barrier to bringing more players into the gaming fold. They do not enjoy the "abstraction" that he supports.
He follows that comment with a theory about the GTA carjacking activity that just defies common sense, by claiming that pressing a button to steal a car is somehow more impactful to the player than actually committing the action in some form(!). Image how this scenario might play out on the Wii console: the player's avatar approaches a car, then the player physically turns the remote and swings it towards himself to simulate opening the door. He then aims the pointer at the driver, presses the A button to grab the driver, and jerks the remote to simulate pulling the victim from the car. Am I to believe that simply pressing a button produces a greater impact? I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. In fact, the above physical interaction adds more emotion to the scenario than was ever present before, forcing the player to consider the violent nature of this activity, rather than to simply view a short cutscene that comes off almost humorously when presented as the result of a single button press.
Lastly, the culmination of Bogost's article is the declaration that developers would benefit from programming for consoles and computers that are over a decade old. Again, he does not seem to remember the frustration of dealing with the massive limitations of ancestral technology. As an artist, I have no desire to again work within limited color palettes and small numbers of onscreen sprites. For another opinion, I asked my co-worker, who has almost a decade of game programming experience, if he would relish programming for an older system. His reply was a curt, "Nope, XNA." I could tell immediately he had no interest in learning to deal with older formats, but since the article was about the Wii, and XNA was not an option, I pressed him further on programming in the absence of XNA. He did not relent in his desire to use the more common and powerful languages that exist today. I think the point to be learned here is that the very types of games Bogost would like to see can be cheaply made on modern systems, but must result from a developer who is determined to not get caught up in "next-gen" technological trappings. I don't understand why anyone would want to give up the power of modern technology when a far simpler solution would be to exercise restraint when creating content. If one stays focused on achieving his goals for instruction and learning through his serious game, all efforts that do not contribute to said objective will fall by the wayside and cease to be a hindrance.”
I thanked him for his time, and that was that. I haven’t heard anything back and at this point I don’t expect to. If I was harsh at all, it may be that in my own work I have faced a butting of heads between developers like myself and academia. So if I took my frustrations on this one poor author, I apologize. But I’m still right. 
-Jason
