Why No One Plays Their Wii Anymore: A Design Analysis
Photo: BrittneyBush
I still remember back in 2005 when the Wii was announced at E3, and the entire games industry just gasped. “What IS that?” It just didn’t make any sense at all. The words were coming out of their mouths and the demos were on the screen, but it just sounded like complete madness. A revolution indeed.
While motion control seems obvious now, you’ll have to take a moment to appreciate how impossibly innovative and creative it was at the time. No one else was anywhere near thinking something like controlling a game some way other than buttons was possible. And thus you have the makings of a fascinating story, of a company going from just about out of business in the console world to being #1, with sales that are unmatched by any other platform, and its leaders being named the top CEO’s among all industries, not just games. The Wii is certainly a lot of fun. Everyone remembers their first time playing Wii tennis, hearing about it, and trying it out. Everyone remembers being amazed that aunts, uncles, and grandparents were suddenly interested in games when they had displayed not a shred of curiosity before. If nothing else, it makes a great first impression, and that first impression has led it to over 50 million units and the best selling single game title of all time.
But there’s something wrong, isn’t there?
Isn’t it odd, that though so many Wii’s have been sold, they are actually played significantly less than other consoles? Isn’t it strange that despite how much fun everyone has swinging their arms wildly during Wii Sports tennis, eventually they are reduced to simply flicking their wrists? Doesn’t it seem unusual that while there are seemingly hundreds of Wii games on the market, you could count the ones worth playing on one hand?
I wrote about this phenomenon a while back on my blog, the fact that for many who had spent time with the system, the Wii seemed like a lie. Not because of the marketing, but because of where consumers wanted the Wii to take them. People imagined full motion and full body gameplay, something that it seems everyone wanted but then was disappointed to find that the Wii remote was very limited in what it could do. Even the Wii Motion Plus seemed to fall short of people’s expectations.
That article was enough at the time. The Wii was a lie to players in terms of what the controller could do. In the long term, players quickly master the controller and then perform the minimum motions to register movement. But that isn’t the whole story. The Wii has also been a dead-end for many developers who wanted to incorporate true motion control into their games. When you get under the skin of the Wii, then you begin to see that it’s not just that the game titles are poor. It’s that the system is actually corrosive to game innovation. It wasn’t until I started developing the Game Design Canvas in earnest that I was able to understand why this is the case.
Now, before we get started, I’d like to say that I’m not bashing Nintendo. I’m just about the biggest Nintendo fanboy you’ll ever find, growing up on Mario. I’ve owned every major Nintendo system to date (yes, even the Virtual Boy) and when I dreamed of becoming a game developer, it was with dreams of Nintendo games. I have nothing but respect for the company itself as well. But the interesting dynamics inherent in the Wii are so unusual in their effects on consumers that it is impossible to ignore. Let’s dive in.
Better Than a Button?
The Wii’s short term success can be attributed to the promise of motion control. You play Wii Sports by actually moving, which is, surprise, much closer to the average person’s daily life. It may seem to you and me, seasoned gamers and game developers, that nothing could be better than pressing a button to perform an action. But this isn’t true for most people; in fact, pressing all those buttons in the frenzied way that we do is quite stressful to many. And so being able to swing the remote instead of pressing a button is a great step in the right direction.
Motion control? Undeniably. You move the controller and it swings the racquet in Wii sports. You can’t rightly complain that the Wii hasn’t done it’s job, now can you?
Well, that depends. Let’s go further.
The Wii Remote offers a few new input devices over a classic video game controller. The motion control that we just mentioned via accelerometers is one. The second is the infrared pointer, and the third is the gyroscope for measuring tilt. If we were to fit these aspects into the Game Design Canvas, where would they go?
All of these new inputs, the motion, the pointing, and the tilt, are new Interaction Designs, part of the Aesthetic Layout. Now for those who haven’t followed our recent series defining the Game Design Canvas, the Aesthetic Layout is defined as simply the extra flavoring on top of the game. The artwork, the sound, the context and environments, and the ways that the player interactions with the computer; these are all aspects of the Aesthetic Layout.
When a game has a method of input, say, a controller versus a board game, then that is part of its Aesthetic Layout. The game feels different to the player based on this interaction. Often, different Interaction Designs bring forward new Base Mechanics for the game. The Base Mechanics are what make the game meaningful; adding new Base Mechanics adds new possibilities for a game.
But let’s not get too theoretical; let’s look at an example of a new Interaction Design that was successfully coupled with a Base Mechanic: The analog stick. When the Nintendo 64 and Playstation were released back in the mid 90’s, then the analog stick was a wonderful new innovation. Instead of having a clunky D-Pad with just up, down, left, and right, the player had 360 degree rotation to move characters on the screen. You could make Mario run in a perfect circle instead of a square’s approximation. In addition, each of those 360 degrees had a velocity; you could press the stick just a bit, or slam it to the edge of the controller. Using this, you could make Mario tiptoe or dash using only on input; no need for an extra “run” button.
As you can see, the analog stick was an Interaction Design Innovation, but it was more than that; it also allowed for new Base Mechanics. You could represent 360 degree movement and velocity with a D-pad, but it would have been more difficult and cumbersome. The analog stick actually allowed players to do more than they were able to do. This allowed the Mechanics to evolve into what they are today. Now we play first person shooters with duel analog sticks. Imagine having to play Halo with two D-pads? It would be a far inferior experience.
So if the analog stick was an innovation that brought both change in the Aesthetic Layout as well as the Base Mechanics, what about the Wii?
Success Through Interaction, Failure through Mechanics
Photo: wvs
As you can probably already predict, the Wii remote’s problem is that it is entirely Aesthetic. While the commercials make the motion capturing capabilities of the Wii remote (and even the Wii Motion Plus) seem far superior to a classic controller, in truth the accelerometers inside are capable of very little. Instead of telling the game the controller’s physical location in space (which would be a real Mechanic innovation), it instead can only essentially tell whether it is moving or not.
You see this in later Wii games. The Wii remote is used for shaking. Shake now. Don’t shake now. Is it shaking, or not shaking? There is no sweeping motion, no capturing of guestures. Only shake or not shaking. On or off.
Does that sound familiar?
That’s right, the Wii remote’s motion capabilities are only Aesthetic. In terms of providing new Mechanics, they are only as good as adding another button. Another button would also be able to tell if it was on or off.
Now, the Wii remote has other functionality that I already mentioned, the pointer and the gyroscope. However the pointer is essentially a lower-resolution mouse, which can be superseded by a PC. And the gyroscope can be replaced by the more-accurate analog stick, in the same way that the motion control can be replaced by a button.
A new Aesthetic Layout without new Base Mechanics. Over time, players and also developers learned this, and their interested in the Wii has petered out.
What of the Future of Motion Games?
The Wii has been so wildly successful because it solved a difficult problem: how to get non-gamers to pick up a game controller. Nintendo did this by making the game controller look more approachable, making it look like a television remote, simplifying the buttons, and adding an Interaction that was familiar: movement. This allowed customers to interact with video games in a way they never had before. This was a business strategy that was completely necessary for us as an industry to get where we are today. In that regard, it served its purpose beautifully.
However, the reason that everyone else, the gamers and experience players, were disappointed was because it did nothing for them. They already had the ability to interact with video games, and so they were searching for new Base Mechanics, new styles of play that were never possible before. What they got was a pretty looking hollow shell with no substance. While it was a boon for some, it was a disappointment for others who were looking for something more. Thus, to move into the future of motion control, to create games that truly involve new gameplay, the industry must move beyond the Wii to something else.
So what to do with the future of motion control? Well for the Wii, since it has brought new players essentially up to the gameplay milestone of the original NES, Nintendo would be well advised to recreate those next steps for players, adjusting for a different market with different interests. After Mario comes Zelda, and after Zelda comes RPG’s and further developed games. Bringing new players who have just entered the market up that same ladder would likely create a new generation of gamers with their own classics and fond memories.
As for other companies, I predict that Microsoft’s Natal will be of much greater interest to players, mature and young. Can you guess why? The device, at least as it has been demoed so far, provides full body motion control, an action that would not be sufficiently captured by a button on a controller, an analog stick, or mouse. This new Interaction Design also opens up a possibility for a great many Base Mechanics, which, as we have seen, helps to give a new technology longevity and ladder-building possibilites.
Was the Wii successful? No doubt. But there is more to be done here. Do not think that motion based gameplay is a dead end; it is not. The Wii’s innovation was in broadening the market, not bringing about new truly motion based games. But understanding the components and effects of a game’s input are imperative, now more than ever before.
Comments
8 Responses to “Why No One Plays Their Wii Anymore: A Design Analysis”Leave a comment, and if you'd like your own picture to show up next to your comments, go get a gravatar!
Very interesting and informative read. I really enjoyed the method you used to explain and compare the ‘D-Pad’ to ‘Analogue Stick’ and you, as the reader, automatically figured out what the problem was with the Wiimote without needing it to be said. A well non-bias observation, fresh from the loads of fanboy dribble out there on the internet.
I’m really enjoying your blog. Great article as always.
One thing about Wii’s controller is that it’s perfect for the younger kids. My 3 year old loves playing Mario Kart
There are a couple things wrong with this article, unfortunately I’ll probably sound like a fanboy pointing them out, but…
“Isn’t it odd, that though so many Wii’s have been sold, so few of them are still played?”
Where do you base this information on? Personal anecdotal evidence would have me believe the opposite of this completely.
“Isn’t it strange that despite its success, the attach rate (ratio between console and game purchases) is significantly lower than other systems?”
While technically true, it wasn’t until recently that the PS3’s tie ratio reached above the Wii’s, so saying it’s “significantly lower” than both is misleading. In fact, in 2008 the Wii’s software sales were much higher than either of the other consoles.
I would be interested to know the PS2’s attach ratio at the end of the day, merely for comparison.
As for the rest of the article, I think it does a disservice to developers who have done interesting or innovative things that wouldn’t be possible on any other console, as well as the gamers who have played them.
Personally, I don’t think Nintendo lied to anyone with marketing the Wii at all. The TGS 2005 teaser was a bit much, but almost every “sketch” concept found its way into a Wii game one way or another. Find me the press release or CEO statement where Nintendo said the Wii Remote would detect full body gestures with 100% accuracy, and I might have an improved lookout on this article.
Andrex, great points, thanks for bringing them up.
For the fact that Wii’s are played less than other consoles, that comes from a Neilsen report released last April. (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/stateofvgamer_040609_fnl1.pdf) The report states that users played the Wii only 6.8% of the possible playtime available during the study, compared to 10.6% and 11.4% for PS3 and 360, respectively.
As for the attach rates, we’re actually both mistaken. When I researched the numbers for 2008 just now, then the Wii and PS3 were very close (about 5:1), and both under the 360 (about 6.5:1) (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20988). When writing I was only thinking of third-party sales, but that isn’t clear from the article. Nintendo sells much more first party software titles per console than Sony or Microsoft.
As for innovative developers and the players who enjoy their games (“Lost Winds” comes to mind), yes, it is a triumph to do what they’ve done. But the possibilities for innovation are more limited than first appear.
I agree that Nintendo never lied to consumers; the article never says that directly. The problem is in what consumers (mostly gamers and those who became experts with the Wii) brought THEMSELVES to expect. Players of Wii sports tennis always begin with large looping forehands, but eventually they inevitably reduce it to flicking only their wrists.
The Wii was an absolutely necessary starting point for motion control; it was not necessary (and likely would have been business suicide) to wait until true motion capture could be developed. All that was necessary was to open gamers to the concept and to broaden the market, and that goal was achieved hands down.
My point is that to continue BEYOND this, to continue to satisfy the craving of players who mastered the Wii-remote, to continue to allow developers to create new Base Mechanics that are impossible on other consoles, the Wii is not enough. Something more entirely is needed. The Wii brought us this far, but it can bring us no further.
The article has been edited; thanks for the feedback!
Dear Brice,
That was a very interesting article.
It should be interesting to see what the next couple years bring. I think it will be a case of revolution and evolution. In the case of Natal perhaps a revolution of the general user interface although I don’t really anticipate any major paradigm shits as far as development for the “core” game playing audience is concerned. The Sony Motion control looks to be a refinement and evolution of the hand held motion control.
The difference lies in the degrees of freedom (DoF) that each input device offers. The Sony device, should it work as advertised, would allow players to navigate and orient themselves in game space while simultaneously allowing them to manipulate an object (possibly two) with six DoF. Granted doing all that would most likely require two wands and not one.
As you said the Wii keeps track of three DoF for rotation (yaw,roll,pitch) using the accelerometer and fudges the distance calculation with vague shake indicators that register little more than a button press. Sony is supposedly offering the real deal within the limitations of the system of course ie. keep within camera view etc.
Natal on the other hand is something different. I do not have very high hopes for it in terms of triple A game development, but I think it may prove quite popular as an interface choice.
Natal is revolutionary, but it is the software that drives it that is revolutionary. Multi-camera visual recognition systems aren’t new or unique. The algorithms that the system uses to accurately identify individuals and objects is what is amazing. In the end I believe the end product will be rather humdrum, but effective at simplifying the human computer interface.
From what I can tell Natal gathers information in three DoF for motion (left/right,up/down,forward/backward). It can gather this information on an arbitrary set of points and uses it to derive all sorts of other useful information.
What is new is that Natal gathers depth information. I used a system similar to this that worked in 2 dimensions when I was a child. It allowed any number of people to play with a virtual volley ball that was depicted on a screen of LEDs. The camera captured the users and displayed their silhouettes on the same LED screen while the computer calculated the sprite based interactions.
Fast forward to today and someone is finally ready to introduce a similar system in 3 dimensions. I doubt very much that Natal offers true full body motion control. I’m sure it works best under ideal conditions and then fudges the rest as best it can.
Like the Wii I believe it is mostly ascetic from the full body motion control input device perspective.
Even if it does offer such functionality it cannot reach it’s true potential without a means for navigating the 3D environment. In all of the Natal demos you never once see the camera move. The response time also seems to lag similar to the wee. I am dubious whether or not accurate quick controls required for fast action oriented game play will be possible on first generation hardware. Natal would no doubt benefit from parallel processing, but I will leave that discussion for another time.
I know I my seem down on Natal, but I think it’s true strength lies in general input. Natal has the potential to bring the ease of use of a touch screen style interface into the living room where it has been heretofore unfeasible. Whether it can live up to that hype remains to be seen, but I think it is a good idea.
I believe a big part of the reason why people do not interact with the internet from their living room is the hassle of having to use a remote or a controller. Creating a touch screen context via Natal makes navigation nearly as simple as using the hallowed mouse. I say almost because gesturing and motioning lacks the tactile feedback of actually pressing a screen or button. For example, you know whether or not you have touched an iphone even though it does not vibrate. This will not be the case for Natal. You will have to gesture or move your hand some arbitrary distance forward to interact with it.
Consequently, game types that require mouse like interactions will benefit greatly. Various strategy games will become viable, but it is the simplicity of the user interactions with content that I think will be the great boon for Natal.
The claims of full body motion control are just there to keep the competition at bay. The games and effects industry rely on full body motion capture to obtain motion data for visual effects and cinematics. The minute they can do that better without a room full of cameras and ping pong balls, I’m sure they will switch. They may in fact be in the process of switching now. I do however, know that even if they used a system like Natal they would need more than one unit to capture the necessary data.
Natal may open the door wider for motion controlled input devices in the future, but I seriously doubt that true full body motion control will be sitting under anybody’s tree come next winter. They may, however, find a nifty new way to navigate their digital content along with a few fun little tech demos thrown into the bargain.
John
In fact the wii controller is no more than a wireless Power Glove.
I used to have a wii and everything you describe in your post happen to me.
But one nulti player game really knock me out : Boom Bloxx
Great blog, man.
I love you’re article and it cements what I’ve been feeling already in how weak the wii’s addiction may be.
However, I also believe that another potent reason of why no one plays their wii anymore is because many non-traditional gamers purchased the wii. You’re correct in saying that many individuals and families purchased their wii’s because of aesthetics or simply because of buzz or popularity. Yet most of these people are not true gamers. They don’t possess the gamer mentality or endurance of what it takes to sit down and invest their time and energy in progressing through a video game. Others purchase the wii without making the decision to schedule in time during their busy days to play with it.
I simply believe that the audience that Nintendo has targeted and acquired aren’t real gamers, they just wanted to try something new, experienced it, and have moved on. I don’t think it’s because of a lack or originality in game or system design, but because the American public has a short attention span.
Have you researched such statistics in Japan, where Nintendo has a bigger following…I’m curious.
And another reason, putting innovation aside, the Wii’s library of games suck.
The Wii Motion Plus addon does resolve a lot of these “flicking the wrist” problems, as it provides a much more accurate “motion capture”. I play a few games on my Wii still, games like Frisbee Golf on Wii Sports Resort, which cannot accurately be portrayed with a standard controller (throwing like a frisbee is much better than pressing a button or two). These style of games are great on the Wii…
For a traditional experience though, the WiiMote sucks. Probably my biggest complaint about New Super Mario is that it forces you to use the WiiMote and didn’t include any support for the classic controller (the new elements in game that need the WiiMote are gimicy at best). Added to the poor controller is the graphically lackings of the Wii and I find that I almost always choose an Xbox version of the game if one is available.
Don’t get me wrong… I really enjoy my Wii… but only for a different, new breed of game. And quite frankly, they’re not making many of those style of games.