I will readily admit that several years ago when Nintendo first unveiled the Wii, I was one of many who sat back, impressed, and boldly stated “this is going to revolutionize gaming.”  Looking back on things now, it seems clear that the Wii has changed gaming, but not really in the ways we expected.

The promise of motion-controlled gaming has always been an elusive one; touted as the next evolution of interactivity, we are all often inclined to think that its mere existence will make a game better.  The Wii, I think we can agree, can easily demonstrate that this isn’t always true.  Motion controls, when implemented poorly, can seem far more of a burden than a benefit.

The fundamental issue, as I see it, is that no matter what level of immersiveness motion controls may add, there are many types of games that simply don’t benefit by their presence.  I look at the types of games I enjoy playing the most – RPGs and strategy games – and I have yet to see a single example of any that have been improved by a motion-sensing control system.  While in some strategy games it may function as a glorified mouse, or in some RPGs it might add a slight level of extra interactivity with timing-based shakes or gestures, the truth is that the games themselves receive no great improvement from their presence, nor suffer any great detriment by their absence.

Now, to be fair, there are most definitely games that have benefited from the Wii’s control system; Metroid Prime 3 uses a very nice aiming system, as well as gesture-based activation for certain commands (like turning levers, swinging your grapple) that feel quite natural and do add a nice little bonus sense of immersion.  In truth, though, Prime 3 could easily be played with “standard” controls and still provide an enjoyable gaming experience.

The prime example of a game that couldn’t exist without motion control is, of course, Wii Sports.  Though many out there are probably loathe to even call it a game, there is no denying that Wii Sports has advanced gaming, but in a very unique way.  There is no denying that Wii Sports is simplistic; but it is successful because of this simplicity, not in spite of it. Wii Sports is easy to pick, and with its simple motions it creates a nice, basic level of immersion. This is what has created its huge appeal to an audience that would never touch a “normal” game controller.

So does that make Wii Sports revolutionary? In some ways, yes. It has certainly changed the appeal and scope of games and game marketing. But it has not fundamentally altered the way we play games. So when I watch videos and images of Project Natal and read glowing marketing copy regurgitated by countless video game journalists, I cannot help but take a deep breath, hold my excitement in check, and really wonder what this will actually change about gaming.

At this point, all we have seen are tech demos, and, as such, it’s difficult to really say what people will do with Natal. Tech demos are designed to wow us, and they are not always completely accurate as to what the final product will or will not be able to do. Peter Molyneaux’s Milo demo is certainly impressive with its gesture-based interactivity and apparent responsiveness to even the smallest visual cues from the user. From an interactivity standpoint, it does seem breathtaking, but the question that rises in my mind is “What does this really mean in a gaming context?”

Consider the other titles Microsoft announced yesterday for their system. The game I am most excited about, Shadow Complex, has a 2d/3d Metroidvania style with a hint of Bionic Commando thrown in for good measure. The game looks very fun, and for the life of me I cannot imagine how it could possibly be played without a controller. With a gesture-only system, without buttons or joysticks, how do I get my character to run left and right? How do I get them to jump? To shoot? Would I, as the player, have to mimic jogging left and right, mimic jumping every time I want to? If this were indeed the case, would I even want to?

Or take an FPS, for instance; again we have to wonder how movement would be handled.  Does the player simply walk in place the entire time they wish to move, pointing in the direction they want to go? In Metroid Prime 3, while the Wii controller is used to aim, the player still needs the analog stick to move about the world. Then I think of the games I play; how would a 60+ hour RPG hold up with no controller interface?  As exciting as simulating drinking a potion might be every few rounds of battle, I would have to think it would grow tiresome rather quickly.

Perhaps I am suffering from a lack of vision here, but I think these pragmatic concerns are what ultimately determines the shape of gaming.

Don’t get me wrong: I see potential in Natal, and I have absolutely no doubt it is going to produce some revolutionary games and some amazing interactive experiences.  The difference is that while these will be new and different individual cases, I do not foresee gaming as a whole being fundamentally changed.

So, despite the heady rush of excitement that flows from the halls of E3 like so much Mountain Dew, let’s take Natal in stride and look forward to the interesting experiences in will likely provide us instead of elevating it to a place where only unfulfilled expectations may follow. We’ll all be happier in the long run that way.