LesmoThoughts: Super Mario 3D World

I wish I hadn't been so lazy lately and written more of these so I start this particular piece off with some wanky "full circle" intro about how Super Mario 3D Land was the first game I wrote about in this style. As is, I've only done a few games in between these bad boys so it would just be weird, fortunately I can just opt for an even wankier intro paragraph where I waste 30 seconds of your life explaining how I couldn't do that but would of instead. Right, good, intros done, now we can go straight into the meat of the matter.

For the uninitiated I wrote a thing about Super Mario 3D Land talking about why it's really good and probably the best Mario game Nintendo have done since Super Mario Bros 3, I also wrote a thing about I just got a Wii U and they're pretty cool. With these two things going for it, does this mean that I also really like Super Mario 3D World for the Wii U? Well let's put it this way; I have four games for my Wii U currently, one of them is that brand new Mario Kart 8 that people are excited for, the first game I reached for was Super Mario 3D World and I got straight into it. It's now a day later and I've beaten it, Mario Kart 8 is still trending on Twitter at time of writing and it's still yet to be touched. I've even taken the seal off it to register the code for my free game download so the job of opening it is already half done and still the disc has not left the box, because I was too busy bouncing my way through 3D World. So we'll file the answer to that particular question as "Yes" for now. 

Structurally Super Mario 3D World is pretty similar to 3D Land and retains most of its good points, just to briefly recap those are: perfect level design, perfect celebration of movement and perfect segregation of content into bite-sized fun packages. There are a few differences regarding 3D World however, unfortunately I'll have to duck the hypothetical 9.7 out of 10 (or something) I'd give 3D Land for its level design to like a 9.2 for containing a bunch of gimmicky levels that don't really work, such as the "touchpad platforms" level previously mentioned in the Wii U post. 3D World gets some points back in the movement department however because I really like how they've handled Mario's speed in this one. Finally they came up with a visual way to indicate full speed in the way the P meter and beeps did in Super Mario Bros 3, as now when Mario is fully revved up there's a little speed boost and Mario shoots forward with a different running animation. It's really neat because the worst part of 3D Land was thinking you were at full speed when you weren't and accidentally doing a tiny bunny hop into a pit, which didn't happen to me a single time while playing through Super Mario 3D World.

Just as a side note, I'd like to point out that 3D World also has an option for manual camera controls now. I bring this up because I didn't notice it until I as in World 5, and even then it as by accident and I never actually used them. I can't stress enough how much of a compliment this is, there are almost no 3D games where the camera is legitimately never an issue without you having to master controlling it yourself, these games have to be given insane amounts of credit for that.

I wasn't a fan of those Super Mario Galaxy games, they're neat and everything and I basically respect them, but they weren't what I wanted a 3D Mario game to be. Super Mario 3D Land was a nearly perfect 3D Mario game, and Super Mario 3D World is nearly a perfect Super Mario 3D Land game, but the proximity of the latter is lower to perfection than the proximity of the former, if you get what I'm saying.

In English: Super Mario 3D World is pretty great, almost as great as 3D Land, but it feels like a baby step away from perfection than one towards it. 

There's lots of little reasons for this, many would say it's that 3D World is too short. To be honest; maybe, but I think there's actually more content in 3D World if you discount the fact that 3D Land was padded out by looping the same level designs twice with different gimmicks. Still, it would have been neat if 3D World has done something similar to that as well, I don't mind these games padding themselves out because it's basically guaranteed that I'm going to want to play them more than once so you may as well give me something to work for. It could be that the levels are a little too gimmicky in places, there's no dealbreakers or anything but there's definitely levels in 3D World that I have no intention of ever playing again whereas I would happily run through all of 3D Land any day of the week 

It might also be those gosh darn garbage Captain Toad levels. A lot of people on the internet go on about games "murdering their childhoods", and I have to admit I felt the top of a blade menacing my childhood's jugular when I saw this kind of crap in a Mario game. Basically, you play as a ridiculously slow Toadstool guy, and you walk across an obtuse straight line in a 3D structure, with no fixed camera angles and no ability to jump (although the jump button still works, it's just that it makes your toadstool guy go WAH and a little thrust instead). The ONLY challenge is to steer the camera so you can actually see where you're going, there is only ever one direction you can go unless you want to fall back to the bottom and start again. If you think anything in these levels is a "puzzle" you are genuinely stupid, I mean no offence or anything, thanks for reading, but I would bet any amount of money that there's strange gaps on your walls where you licked the paint off before it dried.

In a nutshell; Super Mario 3D Land took those Galaxy games that I really didn't like that much, and stripped them of all their fluff and just left the delicious Mario gooey centre that I wanted. Super Mario 3D World for the most part is just more of that, but in 1080p with a mostly horrible soundtrack* and some of that fluff put back into it. Just enough fluff to get up your nose and make you sneeze from time to time, but you'll forget about it when it passes. Overall, I had a good time Super Mario 3D World, and I absolutely definitely 100% will go back to it and play it all over again getting all the stars I missed etc., I'd just say that Super Mario 3D Land was a little better. That's all.

Oh and um....the multiplayer...I guess that's cool too but...I don't have any friends.

*Before I get jumped on there's like 5 tracks or so I really like, but overall I don't like the music in this game SORRY 

LesmoThoughts: Wii U

Well, as of today I have joined the world's most discriminated against minority...people who paid money to own a Nintendo Wii U. I don't even know how to defend the decision; there was a price drop at around the time I got a bunch of money, the Mario Kart 8 free game deal was pretty sweet and there's literally nothing I would play on a PlayStation 4 or an Xbone, so I TOOK THE PLUNGE. Now that I've owned a Wii U for a few hours, I want to write a thing about how it's pretty cool but Nintendo really suck, because that's how I respond to gifts (the console is a birthday present from me to me (thanks me!))

One thing the Wii U has going for it is that it'll definitely be remembered as one of the most obnoxious consoles to setup ever. Almost every stage of the initial set up sequences forces you to do everything through the Wii U controller screen which is a bit of culture shock right out of the gate (more on this later), and before I could really do anything I had to wait for it to download and install huge updates for both the controller and console which took about an hour. Let's not even get into Mii creation and linking it up with my existing Nintendo accounts, I find it slightly concerning that Nintendo's online services seem to have significantly more security than my bank account. Don't ever forget your Nintendo Network ID folks.

I own some games for this thing I guess, but I don't want to talk about those just now. I have played the first three worlds of that Super Mario 3D World and it's pretty cool! But my first couple of hours with an actual Wii U did confirm my own prejudices against the machine, in fact that touchpad controller is really stupid. The only two notable uses in 3D World so far is you can rub the screen to show hidden blocks and coins, and also there was an entire level build around the gimmick of tapping platforms to make them appear and blowing on the microphone to make them move. Goddamnit Nintendo, I waited EIGHT YEARS to play one of your games in 1080p on my television screen, and the first one I get my hands on has levels in it that FORCE me to not look at my television.

Fear of televisions seems to be the running theme within the Wii U. On the big screen most of the menus and applications are at a strange resolution which can only be described as "they fit the screen but not quite lol" almost as a subtle hint in itself that you should not bother with anything that isn't the controller. There's nothing wrong with the resolution on any of the games, so it's kind of bizarre that nothing seems to fit an actual television probably on the console's own interface. It really is just stupid, the two screens thing works on the (3)DS because you can always easily see both or either of the screens, on anything you do involving the Wii U touchpad you have to stop looking at your television. Once again, this home console is encouraging me to ignore my (dad's) 50 inch plasma high definition 1080p television to look at a tiny washed out standard definition screen that I hold in my hands.

Going in to it the thing I was most cynical about was this business of being to continue playing games on the touchpad controller so you wouldn't have to hog the TV or something. This seems such a defeatist attitude; ignoring the fact that the vast majority of households have more than one television these days, it assumes that whoever the gamer in the household is at the bottom rung socially (this is probably true, but it seems weird for an international gaming corporation to want to promote this). Other than for little kids this presentation of this gimmick seems basically pointless until you really stop and think about it:

WAIT.

You mean while I'm working and I get writer's block or something, I can just grab my Wii U controller and knock off a level or two of Super Mario 3D World and then hop back to it? I mean I'm not doing that now, this is just bollocks and I don't get writer's block when I'm just writing bollocks, but Nintendo you have no idea how cool that is to me. I'm finding that taking the time to settle in with a mainstream console game is getting more and more difficult, but having the option to have a handheld bite-sized experience with them? ARE YOU SERIOUS? I liked Bayonetta and all, but other than the combat I found the general level design and story presentation lacking, which made it hard for me to play in long sittings. Being able to play it a couple of combat rooms at a time while I do other things if I'm not in the mood to take time out to sit down in my living room and have long sessions of it? That. Is. AWESOME. My own revelation has doubled my excitement in Bayonetta 2.

Note I said "my own revelation", because none of this has anything to do with Nintendo, and that's why they suck. Three years of their marketing failed to communicate to me what playing Super Mario 3D World hands on told me in half an hour, the Wii U is a gosh darn cool thing under its fluff and own bollocks. Sony tried the portable screen thing too with the Remote Play thing the PSP, but that failed due to expense and lack of support, Nintendo have the tools to make it a big thing just sitting there and they never told anyone. How people are even fully aware that the Wii U still comes with a sensor bar, and many of the new games still support Wiimotes and motion controls etc.? The marketing direction has been completely confused and failed to get across any of the cool things about this machine.

Not that I'm saying the Wii U is a great console or anything, I understand why it doesn't but it is kind of unfortunate that the touchscreen controller doesn't support HD...or that it isn't a particularly good touchscreen. It probably wouldn't happen/be possible but personally I would totally buy a HD version of that controller tomorrow. Just steal the screen from the PlayStation Vita Nintendo, I know where the Sony offices are, I'll help you break in. Just get in there at 2am and steal that, they're not doing anything with it they won't even notice, get a nice screen on that Wii U controller.

It could also use a few more games too, but that goes for the PlayStation 4 and Xbone as well so I don't hold that up as a key reason why the Wii U isn't doing so hot. Nintendo have just failed to communicate the potential of the machine. The Mario Kart 8 free game thing was pretty clever, because before then I was thinking there were about 5 games that I wanted to play (if not necessarily love or possibly even like in some cases) on the machine, and those were Super Mario 3D World, The Legend Of Zelda: WindWaker, Super Smash Bros, Mario Kart 8 and Bayonetta 2. Looking at the list of 10 games available for free with Mario Kart 8, I realised I wouldn't mind owning the vast majority of them, and that maybe the Wii U was finally something worth owning. With the touchscreen controller allowing bite-sized gameplay I probably wouldn't even mind playing through that Sonic: Lost Worlds all the way through...but y'know...with like hour breaks between each stage that is...

LesmoThoughts: Burnout Revenge

I'm basically cool with the Burnout games so I'm not going to rag on them too much. Granted I've only played 3, Revenge and Legends (on the PSP ("Perssspee")) and neither of the first two which were apparently actually about racing WITHOUT psychotically ramming other racers off the road. Looking back EA probably had some uncharacteristic balls to make the decision to turn Burnout into that sort of game, and based on the three entries I've played and stuff I've heard about the ones I haven't I'm just going to conclude that Burnout 3 is the best in the series.

Not that Burnout Revenge isn't still pretty good! It's got most of the things that made Burnout 3 pretty darn fun and adds a bunch of extra stuff as well, granted most of the extra stuff just makes it muddier (if there's a thesaurus near you, be sure to add "dumber" to the words listed under "muddier". Incidentally, if you feel the need to have a thesaurus near you at all times, perhaps you should consider reading more regularly). Probably the new addition that stands out the most is "traffic checking", and jerks are probably scoffing at me bringing that up before the "Revenge" mechanic that's mentioned in the title, and to those jerks I say that's just a gimmick and doesn't matter and you have a stupid haircut. Anyway, "traffic checking" means you can just wail into the back of non-oncoming traffic now, and in Burnout fashion doing so will earn you boost and points and feelings of "heck yea", especially when you score a trick shot by pounding a Ford Fiesta into a school bus full of children or something.

This one subtle change probably sounds pretty cool on paper, but actually it kind of takes a lot of things out of the Burnout formula that changes it for the worst. First off, the roads are less dangerous now...that sucks. Second of all, why can your car slam a truck into the sun Team Rocket style when you hit it from behind at no risk, but hitting oncoming traffic wipes you out instantly? Also, why does getting slightly nudged into the same traffic also force you to crash when the game demonstrates I can plough through non-racer vehicles like they're your mum? There's also this weird little scratch at my psychology, where the game now awards you with boost for BOTH driving on the wrong side of the road AND ploughing through traffic on the right side of the road (if you've still got that thesaurus handy, this is "right" as in "correct" and not "opposite of left". But due to this game being set in America it's actually both anyway so I don't know why I brought it up, just pretend these brackets aren't here). You know awarding me for "driving dangerously" has more appeal when it's actually kind of possible to drive "safely" in the first place.

And FINE I'll mention the Revenge thing briefly. I could see the appeal in a multiplayer setting I guess; wanting the game to keep track of which of your douchebag friends is slamming you into street signs the most and awarding you for getting them back within the context of the game rather than flushing their head down the toilet. It's kind of dumb in the single player mode though, especially as when a race ends the game reveals the extraordinary personalities you were competing against this entire time go by the title of "DRIVER1", "DRIVER2", "DRIVER3", "DRIVER4" and "DRIVER5". There's only so mad I can get at a faceless PS2 era modelled car, at least let me name all of the drivers myself like in MOTHER 3, or come up with your own Wacky Racer style personalities so I can at least imagine some guy shaking his fist at me in his mangled wreckage.

Enough of that, let's not pretend this is actually some kind of game review and talk about the actual worst thing of Burnout Revenge, and that's the soundtrack.

NO. DO NOT COMMENT AT ME THAT THE SOUNDTRACK IS AWESOME AND I'M JUST A JERK.

Even if it was good music, I can't imagine anything lazier than licensing a bunch of wabbily mid-2000s pop-rock gosh darn GARBAGE for the soundtrack of a racing game. Especially a racing game that has a focus on ridiculous speed and doing that effect where the audio gets drowned out anyway. Burnout 3's soundtrack wasn't good either but I could tolerate it, I mean I'd rather get woken up by two falcons pulling me out of bed by the ears than set anything on that soundtrack as my morning alarm song, but it didn't offend me to hear it during the background of a high speed racing game I guess.

It's not that big of a deal really I suppose, but it's a shame that a genuinely great little series has chose to date itself so horribly with this decision. You could have come up with some original music to give your game it's own little personality, but instead I'm forced to either play the game with no music (which also kind of sucks) or endure your custom soundtrack that you have thoroughly stapled into the game forever. There's two points to writing this piece, 1) that (entirely) licensed soundtracks are super lame and really lazy, Burnout Revenge is just the worst example to me because they filled it completely with the sort of music I despise personally and 2) that EA can't quite release anything without ruining it at least slightly.

So there you go; Burnout's great, Burnout Revenge is pretty good, EA sucks goomba balls. The end.

LesmoThoughts - American McGee's Alice

There's going to be some non-linear storytelling going on here, let's start in the Summer of 2011 where I made a day one purchase on Alice: Madness Returns for thirty-eight dot ninety-nine British pounds. I played that game until I beat it, and it sure wasn't that great, it was a basically competent but dull 3D platformer that stretched 4 hours of ideas out to about 15. It was one of those games where word got around quick that it wasn't that great and it irritatingly slashed in price mere weeks later, which I was rather butthurt about. I held onto my copy because I needed it to play the free HD version of the original American McGee's Alice which I figured I might someday.

Flashback to the beginning of 2011 and I see screenshots for the first time of Madness Returns, it looked kind of cool and seemed to have some kind of creative spark behind it somewhere, which was somewhat uncharacteristic with it being an EA game and all. I'm not sure if they had stopped calling themselves "Electronic Arts" at that point, that was probably a smart decision to prevent GENIUS puns like "Electronic Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...en't you wishing you chose another game right about now?" etcetera . Well it turned out this Batman Returns thing was a sequel to some old PC game I'd never played, because it came out in 2000 and in 2000 I was too busy hitting my chunky desktop computer with a chair to make it run Lego Island (and later Lego Alpha Team). 

Well in 2011 I got on the gosh darn internet and torrented the fudge out of that American McGee's Alice (I was a student so this is totally morally okay (I also did some carjacking on the side by dropkicked through the windows Dukes of Hazzard style (alright not really (wait let's just start this again, American McGee's Alice is an EA game so this is totally morally okay)))) and then I played that game until I beat it too. It wasn't that great either, but I was playing it with a keyboard whereas the new game was coming to consoles, and the biggest problem with it was god-awful combat and platforming which seemed to be the two big points of focus in the new one, so I was still vaguely interested.

Well a HD remake FOR CONSOLES of that 2000 PC game came bundled with Alice: Return of the Joker so three and a bit years later I thought I would give that a whirl and see how it holds up. And if I say right now that I'm writing this after only playing the game for about 10 minutes that's probably all I really need to say about it. I'll say more anyway; and this might come off as harsh; this game kind of actually fucking disgusts me. Without resorting to really dumb choices like Action 52 or something I honestly can't think of a game that has a worse jump or worse combat.

The jump is ridiculous because Alice jumps so insanely high that it seems to take the camera by surprise every single time, but is still problematic because the level design is so stretched out that it still doesn't feel like she jumps high enough. Not to mention every single time she jumps she makes one (and only one) grunting sound that sounds like she's being sexually assaulted in a wind tunnel. In trying to figure out how to skip them (lol) I hit the jump button during a non-interactive cutscene and the game glitched and started playing the jump grunt over and over again, you could probably play some of the Cheshire Cat's lines over that and make a pretty sweet remix.

EVERY ADVENTURE REQUIRES A SINGLE STEP, TR-TR-TR-TR-TR-TR-TR-ITE BUT *BAP BAP BAP BAP* TR-TR-TR-TR-RUEEEE~~~ *UH UH UH UH*

I don't think even the people who like this game can defend the combat, I'm down with making the default "free to use" weapon kind of rubbish and a last resort kind of deal, but that's only really good design when you make the other weapons worth a damn. Not to mention the default knife strike is a tiny little slash that you can barely see as the camera is always positioned directly behind you like God Hand (no wait! Not like God Hand at all, oh God Hand I'm so sorry I compared American McGee's Alice to you that is so not cool) so telling when your utterly useless weapon is actually connecting is a challenge in itself. I could make some joke about the deck of cards feeling like throwing soggy cornflakes (and I just did) but just thinking about this game is depressing me.

There's something misguided and slightly pretentious about the entire project, making Alice in Wonderland (which is one of the handful of novels I can actually claim to have read! Boy, I can't tell you a lot about books, but I can sure say that Alice in Wonderland is better than Great Expectations and George's Marvellous Medicine) all depressing and screwed up only makes it less interesting to me. I don't really see the appeal of making the inhabitants of Wonderland all depressed and bi-polar when their M.O. is usually to just be kind of insane. But hey, both the Alice games have some interesting ideas and visuals in them, so I won't knock it too hard I guess, but for my money neither of these games are truly as demented as the original source material.

Thinking about this I realise I have a stronger connection to the Alice games that will probably/possibly make me hate them forever. When I originally beat this game back in the early 2011 days I sure did post on social media about how it was kind of sucky but also sort of cool and I was looking forward to playing the new one, a girl who I really liked but didn't know especially well at that time revealed herself to be a pretty huge fan of these games. Man, that felt like destiny at the time, and was in no way merely two near-identically aged people being intrigued by a totally mainstream product pushed out by one of the largest entertainment companies in the world and experiencing a slight overlap in interests (Disclaimer: I never have actually believed in "destiny", I also tie my own shoelaces and butter my own toast).

Many months later the lady in question actually met American McGee at some book signing event or something, and she came away disappointed because he was just a "normal guy" and not some psycho-weirdo guy. I don't really know what she was expecting, maybe that he would slit her arm open with his nametag and sample some blood for "the collection", but the EA development system probably beats any kind of weirdness (or personality) out of you eventually so I wouldn't hold it against him. But still, that's pretty god-damn hilarious, I can't help but slightly love someone for being disappointed in someone else for not being enough of a weirdo. These two bitter-sweet memories (the full story will have to be saved for another day (i.e NEVER)) hit me whenever I think about the Alice games, even if it's just seeing Alice: The Killing Joke on my games shelf, maybe that'll stop me from ever appreciating the little nuggets of good that exist within them.

I don't feel bad about it though because they're still rubbish...OOOHHHHHHHHHHHH

The Future Of Videogame Controls

It's been a weird decade in terms of how we interact with our videogames. There's always been a market for weird peripherals and gimmicky additions to our home consoles, but in the olden days the policy was basically "quick, add some more buttons to that!" Looking at controller designs from the Atari 2600 up to the PlayStation 2 the general formula was "take the old, add a few buttons to it or at the very least move them around." Probably the most embarrassing example of this was the Sega Mega Drive/Genesis, whose grand plan was to take the NES controller and stick another button on the end with no consideration of the human being using it who perhaps maybe would want to have easy access to both the A and C buttons. But hey it was a good idea I guess, 3 is definitely a bigger number than 2 after all.

Now we're the point where our controllers have a D-Pad, two analog sticks (that can also be buttons) and 11 other buttons to play with, they're also all in places that experienced gamers are generally okay with. However, for someone who isn't already on board the videogame train to Funtown a PlayStation 2 controller is probably as confusing as a Rubik's cube with 16 different colours. So it was clear the button-orientated arms race wasn't  going to get us anywhere further .This is when Nintendo came out with the DS and Wii in two consecutive years, both were commercially successful, and from a game design point of view one of them was a really good idea and the other was a not that great an idea. Soon followed iPhone/smartphone games, Kinect, PlayStation Move and now everyone's talking about VR.

The point of those first two paragraphs is for the longest time in gaming, the assumption has been that to change how videogame controls work you have to physically change the controller or the method in which the player interacts with the game in the first place. Well, a heck of a gosh darn lot of that has been happening in recent years and results have been pretty mixed, so trying to think of the next "revolutionary controller" may be a flawed concept.

Well, for those that don't know or found this little rambling through some other means, this is part of Critical Distance's Blogs of the Round Table, and the topic of discussion for this month is "How do we move forward with controls in games?" Well since I'm British, I'm going to change that to "How do we move forwards with controls in games" because some people say that here, and because I'm a negative jerk I'm going to go through three ways in which we DON'T go forwards with videogame controls:

1. - ADDING MORE BUTTONS

We've pretty much hit our threshold on how many buttons a videogame controller can have. The only counter-argument to this I can think of is "well, most people have to learn how to use keyboards for typing and stuff!" Well sure, keyboards are kind of convoluted out of necessity, but still it takes years for the average person to get really good at typing, and even then how many tiny errors do all of us make every day whilst typing? Most videogames don't have the equivalent of a backspace key, so these tiny errors can be murder when trying to present an interactive experience.

Having said that, I don't think it's essential for game controllers to have less buttons either. Those trigger things they've added to the backs of controllers, those are pretty darn good for shooting I guess, and most platform fans probably don't want to see the face buttons on the front of the controller get hacked off either. I guess I should just write a little public service announcement for any developers that might be reading this (especially AAA ones) that you aren't obliged to use every single button on the controller. I'll concede that it's necessary in some games, but if you are seriously applying a core part of your game to the L3 button you might need to either re-evaluate your design document or at least move the open can of industrial paint away from your desk.

Basic point here: controls should be streamlined as much as possible.

2. - MOTION CONTROLS

Well of course we were going to get back to the Nintendo Wii, which other than gimmicks and party games didn't have a lot worth a damn released for it despite its massive success. Motion controls definitely have their place in the gaming stratosphere, but I'm sure most people have given up them as a potential "next big step" sort of project.

(Most) Videogames have to engage the player emotionally and/or mentally, and both of those things are things that happen inside your brain and not to your body. The key is to make the time between videogame > player's brain > back to videogame as minimal as possible, and preferably instantaneous. Having to perform larger physical motions (which no physical feedback so they can't possibly emulate what is actually happening on the screen) only extends this time and draws you further out of the experience. This same kind of dissonance between input and action is why online games with poor netcodes (i.e. a lot of them) are so ungodly frustrating. I genuinely don't think there's a more depressing feeling within the context of videogames than failing because your button press came out 0.8 second later than it should of. Online games can possibly fix this entirely someday, motion controls can not.

Also, people generally don't do star jumps while watching a movie or reading a book, probably because it's really distracting for the former and physically impossible for the latter.  

(this is slightly off the topic at hand, but you can read me further discuss the issues of physical input in regards to videogames by reading my "Why Mashing Buttons is Stupid" piece on GameGrin)

3. - VIRTUAL REALITY

A ha! I'm done playing Captain Hindsight on the past and now I'm laying my balls right on the table ready to take several knocks at the future! Okay, same point again, Virtual Reality is a great idea (not just for games though, it's kind of super weird that so many people only see VR as a gaming device when it has many other interesting applications) but it's not something I can honestly attest to being the next step of gaming technology.

I could just be a jerk again and point out that people generally don't seem to take to things that have to be strapped to their heads, they don't even really like having to wear funny glasses for 3D movies. But I'll turn the jerkiness on myself and also point out that a lot of people like to listen to music with sweet big-ass headphones so that's probably a hurdle it could overcome.

The main problem I can see with VR is that it's overwhelmingly antisocial. I can't picture a world where two or more people would sit around in a living room all with these things strapped on, nor would you let other people "watch" you play it. You can argue that its strengths would be in single player games anyway, but a single player game that you're basically forced to play alone is not going to be the new hotness. Videogames have become highly social and are not something near-exclusively played by little kids and closeted nerds any more, so any advance in the technology needs to acknowledge that.

Again, none of these things mean VR will be a failure (and I would predict that it almost definitely won't be a failure) but there are inherent design issues with it that limit its appeal to a mainstream entertainment audience. Maybe someone a lot smarter than me will find a way around them and prove me wrong, and I would be down with that! But right now, consider VR as part of the future as opposed to the next big step.

THE FUTURE

So what is the FUTURE OF VIDEOGAME CONTROLS? Well I don't know, but let's be honest the entire industry would look pretty ridiculous if a website called "Lesmocon.com" cracked the secret.

One thing that my mind keeps coming back to is the connection between the player and the screen. In a way, it's unfortunate and somewhat unnatural that we have to press anything, I think it's in the interest of videogames for them to make themselves as intuitive as possible, maybe even to the point where it's easy to forget there's a controller there at all.

Games are almost there in terms of movement (good ones are anyway), I've had some weird existential moments within games where without even trying I navigate a really difficult path in a platformer or something, and immediately afterwards my brain has this moment of "woah...how did I even just do that..." But in terms of extra actions there's some work to be done, this is another example of how button prompts and Quick Time Events are really bad design. When a videogame shows a message of "Press X to do this contextual action" within half a millisecond your brain processes "oh! Press X! Where's X on the controller? There's X on this controller! Now I'll press X on this controller!" See, the way I chose to write that there were three cases of the game forcing you to remember you're holding a controller, clearly I have proven my own point now.

I guess that's my answer then. You may argue I've somewhat dodged the question, but I'd argue that the industry has been dodging the question by constantly trying to change the hardware as a solution. Any human being can be taught how to use an analog stick, or how to tap the screen on a mobile device, now it's developers turn to design games in a way where people can pick up a controller and play it. It would be too much of a sweeping statement to say no games should have tutorials, but if you feel your game needs a tutorial to explain what every button does directly, with words on the screen and everything, maybe you should consider why that is and what you can do to change it.

So yea...we have enough buttons, we have enough controllers, we have enough technology, we probably don't have enough good games though, and logic would dictate that this isn't the controller's fault. The failure of the Wii U, rejection of the Xbox One forcing the Kinect upon its audience and the utter confusion in whatever the PlayStation 4's touchpad thing is are all evidence that gimmicky changes to how we interact with our games no longer impress anyone. You know what did impress a lot of people? Super Mario Bros., that's what.

There you go games industry, I did crack the secret after all! Just make a game as good as Super Mario Bros. and you're golden.