Interacting with Games

(this is a repost from my class-related blog for Cog Sci 120, "Human-Computer Interaction." I miss that class already...)

I (obviously) find video games to be interesting sources of interaction-design discussion. One thing that I've been thinking about lately is the variety of games that come out, and the notion that nearly all of them use the same input device. Aside from games like Dance Dance Revolution or Guitar Hero, the huge majority of console games use the standard controller: Two analog sticks, a D-pad, four thumb-accessible buttons, and four shoulder buttons, plus a couple of extras depending on the console. This basic arrangement has been the standard since at least 1994 when the original PlayStation came out. Prior to the PlayStation, Sega's and Nintendo's controllers followed a pretty clear evolution, with Nintendo following its own path and Sega often "borrowing" certain features from Nintendo. Sega eventually quit the console hardware business after lackluster sales of its Saturn and Dreamcast systems. The graphic below shows an abridged evolution of controllers from the major console manufacturers. The Dreamcast's is the final one in the Sega column; I would argue that its controller was one of its downfalls! It seems that the basic philosophy has followed the "more is more" mentality discussed in the textbook - more buttons means more abilities.

The problem with the "more is more" approach is the sheer complexity of and number of possibilities provided by the latest generation of input hardware. Humans only have 10 fingers; the Xbox 360 control pad has two analog sticks, a digital direction pad, and 11 buttons. Add to this the fact that the controller must be held by at least two fingers of each hand, and realistically only four buttons can be reached at any time. This complexity turns off many novice and casual gamers who often become confused or intimidated by the number of controls, or who don't play often enough to remember all the mappings between the buttons and their in-game functions. The current state of video game controllers can arguably be seen as an example of the pitfalls of using established concepts to inform new designs; relying on old examples and metaphors blinds the designers to alternatives which may be better suited to the task. Does an increase in controls really mean an increase in playability? And the ultimate question for a games system: Does it make a game more fun?

Nintendo has realized that more controls does not equal more fun. In fact, such a panoply of controls can hinder the experience by forcing the player to concentrate more on finding the right button for the right action. As mentioned above, a player may also have to devote significant time and effort to learning the controls. The Wii controller rejects the "more is more" philosophy in favor of something almost entirely new. (An image of it is in the last spot on the Nintendo column of the graphic at left.) It leverages people's natural tendency to gesture and move while interacting by using a two-part controller, held in both hands. Each part includes a few buttons - though significantly fewer than a PlayStation or Xbox - and both parts are motion sensitive. This allows for some unique, and often more natural, possibilities for interaction. For example, in Wii Boxing, the player dodges and swings their arms as though they are fighting a real-life opponent - much more intuitive than pressing buttons on a standard controller. A player can fish by imitating the motion of holding a rod and reeling in, throw a ball by making a throwing motion, swing a sword by slashing, and so on. The increased physicality and streamlined button interaction can provide a much more engrossing experience than the finger acrobatics required of standard gamepads.

The Wii's runaway success - it often sells more than the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 combined - is confirmation that its control scheme is a welcome relief from the gaming status quo. Players are much more comfortable simply picking up a Wii controller and playing a game because the controls are simple and intuitive. Nintendo software is very good at altering the control scheme in response to changing contexts within a game, remapping actions to the controls in ways the player scarcely has to think about. By lowering the interaction barrier, Nintendo has discovered one of the keys to bringing video gaming to a wider audience. The Wii experiment has also shown the value of thinking "outside the box," as well as paying attention to the needs and limitations of users.