[Editor's note: We're not just a (rad) news site -- we also publish opinions/editorials from our community & employees like this one, though be aware it may not jive with the opinions of Destructoid as a whole, or how our moms raised us. Want to post your own article in response? Publish it now on our community blogs.]
Game demos frighten me. It's not because I fear that a poor demo will sour my expectations for an anticipated title, but because I always get antsy staring at the button configuration screen that appears during the initial load-up. The idea is to become acclimated with the controls in the twenty or so seconds before you jump in. More often than not, I feel overwhelmed by whatever mess of a controller layout that developers expect me to dedicate to memory.
A couple years back, Penny Arcade whipped up the above one-panel comic, a loading screen that appears before the demo of the fictional StarFire Saga V: Laserion. It's an obvious exaggeration that nonetheless highlights a very real, very disturbing trend. It's a function overload, the result of an assumed obligation on the part of developers to use every single damn button for ever more specialized and extraneous in-game abilities all for the sake of "complexity" and "depth."
What a friggin' nightmare! It's an unnecessary hurdle for gamers who just want to jump in without having to be tutored through lengthy tutorials and reminded by mood-killing on-screen prompts. I would petition for developers to exercise more restraint, to consider a more streamlined approach to virtual interaction, but I know that as long as they are enabled they will not want to step out of their comfort zone. Well, I say it's time to make them uncomfortable, time to kill the enabler.
It's time to kill the controller.
Have you looked at that thing recently, just really looked at it? It's like it was made for an octopus. Two sticks, a direction pad, four face buttons, start and select, four shoulder buttons, and most recently a "home" button for easy access to the main portal. It's impossible to access all the buttons at the same time. Want to use the direction pad? Let go of the left stick. Want to use the right stick? Let go of the face buttons. And yet with all these features at your disposal you are still forced to use two or more in conjunction for crucial gameplay commands.
Here is the layout for Gears of War, lauded for its intuitive cover mechanic. That's about the only thing that's intuitive because I can't make heads or tails of the rest of this mess. Mapped to the Y button is a "look at point of interest" function. Is that a joke? A "look at point of interest" button? You can't actually, ya know, turn and look at shit manually? Is your line of sight locked to a fixed path unless you press that button? I also have no idea why melee has its own button. Melee should be performed by pressing the fire trigger when you are in close proximity to an enemy. Remember how in Metal Slug you would knife somebody standing right next to you instead of wasting ammo? That worked, didn't it?
This game desperately needs some consolidation. Spread out some of those fifty commands mapped to the A button to the newly freed space while you are at it. That still doesn't explain why so many functions are even needed. People would tell me it's because they like options, that they like being given the freedom to choose how to approach any given situation. As such, they gladly trade in intuition for a few extra toys to play with. It's become such a common occurrence that we take for granted the need to basically relearn the wheel with every new game. The challenge should come from the game itself, not from decrypting the jumble of controller doodads like it's a God damn cipher.
Speaking of ciphers, let's talk about a man named Hideo Kojima. There's a cat who really takes the advice "Use the space!" to heart. He just can't help himself. Anyway, I'm playing Zone of the Enders: The 2nd Runner when I'm asked to issue a response with either the L3 or R3 buttons. Waitaminute... three? As in the number after two? I'm only aware of L1/R1 and L2/R2, so you must be mistaken, Mr. Kojima. Oh... ooooooh! You gotta push the sticks in! Oh, yeah! Makes perfect sense!
No, no, it does not make perfect sense. The sticks that you use for basic movement and camera controls double (triple?) as a third set of L/R buttons? What happened, Sony? Was there no more room on the shoulders for another row of migraines? They aren't even labeled! Someone has to physically point out to you that the sticks can be pushed in! Marvelous! Listen, if you are a developer and you want feedback on whether or not you are using too many buttons, here's the test: Did you map anything to L3/R3? You did? Well, go back to the drawing board and try again because somewhere along the line you fucked up.
I bet you guys think you know where I'm going with this, huh? Oh, Mega is going to espouse Nintendo philosophy! He's going to talk about how motion controllers are the wave of the future or some other nonsense! I don't want to wave my arm like a spastic, blah, blah, blah. No. No one is innocent. In fact, Nintendo is perhaps the biggest offender of them all because the company actually knows better yet doesn't act accordingly.
Case in point, the Wii Remote. Innovative motion controls for intuitive gameplay! Even grandma can pick up the controller and instantly bowl a few frames of bowling. But that's not all, is it? Look at the wacky placement of the buttons on that bastard! Need a control stick? There's an attachment for that! And for those users and developers who refuse to play ball on the motion team, there's the Classic Controller! In the interest of ensuring the Wii Remote could be adapted to any and all possible scenarios, Nintendo has spawned a behemoth more convoluted than anything anyone could possibly imagine!
You are supposed to hold the thing like a remote, right? Well, kick me in the nuts, there are two buttons below the speaker that are inaccessible unless you use a second hand, thus eliminating the benefit of single-hand play. Oh, but you can hold the remote on its side and play it like a two-button NES controller! Yeah, and how are you supposed to comfortably press the big A button and B trigger now? God help you if you try to play an FPS on the thing because whatever benefit you gain from infrared aiming is cancelled out by awkward placement of all those unnecessary commands that just have to be there.
This isn't Nintendo's first foray into crafting an all-purpose input device. Remember the N64 controller? Who doesn't still have nightmares of that magnificent clusterfuck? Three prongs? Kinda looks like an X-Wing if you stare at it long enough. How do you hold it, though? I bet the first time you gripped the sides like you normally would and tried to stretch your thumb across to reach the stick, right? No, you are supposed to grab it by the dick, but then how do you reach the direction pad? Why have an array of features and no way to easily access them all?
I've got to hand it to the few companies that put sensibility and ease-of-use above all else. Katamari Damacy relies almost entirely on manipulating the DualShock's two analog sticks, allowing you to roll the ball as if you were driving an R/C truck. Even the normally infuriating L3/R3 buttons, used here to perform a quick turn, are implemented in a way that makes sense in the given context. Meanwhile, Tekken associates each of the four face buttons with a character's appendages so that stringing combos becomes a streamlined process of alternating left and right punches and kicks. The game can be played with just those buttons, leaving the shoulder buttons to be used as optional shortcuts for simultaneous button inputs (i.e. left and right punch in conjunction).
Depth and versatility does not have to come, nor should it, at the expense of simple and intuitive controls. Unfortunately, the honor system doesn't quite work and we can't trust developers to keep the end-user in mind. Why would you trust them anyway? We wouldn't need to play this game of "Find the Button!" if hardware companies just said, "Screw you, pretentious game makers! Here's a two-button controller! Quit whining!" But they won't do that for fear alienating partners and disappointing the rabid "hardcore" faction.
Remember this guy? What was wrong with him? Maybe the games themselves were a tad more challenging, but you couldn't fault the controller for their pitfalls. Because there were so few buttons, control layouts were fairly uniform across the entire library. You knew that A was used for jumping and that B was used for the primary action. If that wasn't the case, all it took was a couple of seconds fiddling with the controller and you were set for life. I mean, have you ever met a person who couldn't return to an old NES game they played back in the day because they were afraid of relearning the controls? Of course not!
Besides, for only having two face buttons, pause and select, and a cross pad, the NES controller offered a great deal of versatility. I can distinctly remember pulling off jabs, hurricane kicks, judo throws, uppercuts, and rising knees with ease in Double Dragon II. Even my clueless father could get into this game and see it through to the closing credits. See? Simple controls lead to greater accessibility which enables more players to enjoy video games with one less river to cross.
I doubt many of you remember, but the NES controller was considered bare bones even back when it was first released. The big shift in the U.S. was towards the personal computer and the keyboard attached to it. Even before that, we had consoles such as the Intellivision and the ColecoVision with two of the most baffling controllers I've ever laid eyes on. Number pads and dials! Can you believe that? Ever tried gaming on a cell phone? But hey, there was plenty of real estate for developers to stretch their legs! "Basic" doesn't seem like such an unwelcome alternative, now does it?
So what am I proposing? Should hardware manufacturers take the plunge and implement a "win" button on all future controllers? Absolutely not! Nonetheless, there is something deeply concerning when developers and gamers think that the only problem with traditional controllers is that they don't have enough buttons to perform all that modern gaming requires. If you want lots of buttons, go play on the PC where you can have dozens of hotkeys for everything from lighting a signal flare to picking your nose. Consoles are meant to be simple enough for anyone to enjoy, hooked up to the big TV right in front of the living room couch.
What would a better controller be like? I'm not sure. At the very least, a whole mess of buttons will need to be tossed out the fucking window. Developers need to learn how to do more with less, learn the art of context-sensitivity, but I'm not so dense to believe that they should throw away all the knowledge that they've acquired. Some genres, some activities have become so ingrained in mainstream gaming that we have no choice but to accommodate them. Therefore, we must think of new streamlined and intuitive ways to manipulate future games.
Does that mean motion controls? Maybe, I dunno. I can't be certain that motion controls will be how we interact with games from this day onward, but we must be receptive to them regardless. Maybe there will be some other means of that no one has thought of yet. Full vocal commands? Thought power? Regulated farts? Could be!
In the meantime, let's keep it simple, stupid. Having fewer buttons, sticks, and triggers is a start. It's not the end of the world, people. Games are not going to become snoozefests if we don't have possession over every minute on-screen action. However, if we keep going down this particular road, who knows how many of us resilient gaming stalwarts will grow disinterested because the mental cost of entry has become too high.
Contest:
6:20 PM on 10.22.2009
| 
I really wouldn't call that a valid excuse. If you are going to regulate the 1 and 2 to functions that, in the grand scheme of things, that will rarely be used then why not just cut those functions out entirely? And what happened to viewing the map from the pause menu?
Explain yourself.
Hell, my kids, young & old both, have no problem with the controls whatsoever. Maybe this is an old folks thing...though it sure doesn't apply to me.
Every game should very simply have mappable controls. If I'm never gonna play dead or melee someone then let me dump that option from say the R3 button so that I'm not suddenly melee'ing someone while I'm in the middle of shooting them because I exerted a tad too much pressure on the stick in my excitement to kill! kill! kill!
Either fully mappable controls... or I want a psychic controller that I can control with my mind! (eh... maybe not.. I'd be shooting someone then my lil soldier guy would probably stop and go order pizza!) :)
It's second nature only if you've trained yourself for years by playing every new thing in the pipeline. Even so, ten minutes? I should be familiar with all the buttons in ten seconds. Too much and it's just overwhelming. A seasoned gamer will do his or her best to take it all in stride, but a newcomer may not. And what about people like me? I'm a seasoned gamer and that shit turns me off immediately.
Why do all these buttons need to be used? Why do we need so many functions? Why does everything have to be so complicated? Why do I have to fifty different things?
If you want something definitive out of me then I'll say... hmmm... an SNES pad with maybe only three face buttons instead of four and the control pad replaced by an analog stick. Not in addition to the control pad, in place of it.
Or you could listen to this guy.
Pressing two buttons at once to get a move to happen wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to bring back. Prototype does it. Although, Protoype's moveset and button options are pretty intense. Hot keys, aiming keys, camera and target switching are the same stick: its really a great mashup to fit all these options in.
Also, as streamlined as Fable II is, it maps "cancel" to the same button that "casts magic", which has ruined the "mood" for me on a number of occasions.
But then you have Zone of the Enders, where controlling your mech happens to be this weaving of stick control, face buttons that control altitude and using the D-Pad for secondary weapon swapping. Certainly, once you get it all figured out, its some of the best full 3D space controls around. But the learning curve is harsh. One would think that there's a better way.
It really comes down to a console maker being progressive with their base control scheme, and convincing their third parties that there's good potential.
Except that back in the days games were simple plataformers... Try to explain to me how Killzone2 would work out with your ideal controller...
Ghostbusters on the NES. How the hell did you control that gaaaaaame!@/
Agree with Elsa that user-customizable control mapping needs to be standard fare!
Also, grew up with an Intellivision - playing with a keypad seems so ancient now!!
I do agree that controllers are too complicated for newbies and they are intimidating. Plus they are confusing, think of all the times you have to explain the 360 bumpers to someone. Also, the L3/R3 analog-stick-as-a-button thing definitely has to go, that's just stupid.
You also say that there should be one attack button. As in shoot becomes melee depending on proximity to your enemy, that would not work out. While it does work in Metal Slug, majority of shooters would have broken close quarters combat with a system like that. What if you want to use a shotgun at point-blank for example? It won't work.
Anyways, you're right. Controllers need to be simplified, or rather, developers just need to map things better and not over-complicate things.
Also, for the record, the Gamecube controller is still, to me, the least desirable among "mainstream" controllers - worse than N64, worse than Dreamcast. I'm pretty much the only one who thinks so, but I hate using that thing enough to stand firm in that conviction.
Well, my "ideal" controller suggestion isn't all that ideal. I just threw out the first thing that popped into my head that would work for a large set of gametypes. I came up with it in five seconds.
Shooting someone point-blank? Is that really necessary? I know a lot of players love that visceral thrill, but has it ever been necessary in a game ever? If it really gets your panties in a knot, perhaps you'd be more interested in the GoldenEye 007 solution where melee combat occupied its own slot on the weapon cycle.
Again, I stress that a reduction of buttons is only part of the answer. We need to explore more intuitive forms of control that may or may not include motion controls.
Agree with Elsa that user-customizable control mapping needs to be standard fare!
Also, grew up with an Intellivision - playing with a keypad seems so ancient now!!
Also about the point blank thing, it is a big deal. Using Halo as an example, it takes two melee strikes to kill an enemy (multiplayer), but only one point blank shotgun shot. Let's say that you melee someone, but you wanted to shoot him/her, but you were just within the range of the game switching shoot to melee. However the other person backs up a bit after you hit him/her and just manages to be right outside the range and kills you with his/her shotgun in one shot. You died because you were a few inches too close. That sucks.
Maybe a reticule change could indicate when you are in the range of melee or not, that could work out. But I still think that having melee and shoot on one button will not work out. Also another alternative is like you said, having melee be a 'switchable' weapon, that's totally plausible as well. In fact that actually works out well in some games. Quake and the chainsaw bracelet anyone?
Again though, I agree that less buttons is for the better, and that it only goes so far. Hope this gets front-paged and I fapped it.
Get this; I was going to use that EXACT header image!
Well done <3 <3 <3 <3
I have to disagree, I like my controllers these days. There's enough buttons that I don't have to be limited by the controller, but not too many buttons that I get confused. Even PC gaming somehow pulls it off - look at how many freakin hot keys you have assigned in World of Warcraft. You can barely touch anything without having a window pop up, yet somehow it works and it's way more convenient than navigating menu after menu to get to what you need.
That first picture made me shudder... I'm always so intimidated by controller diagrams.
Still, I love what you wrote. :) Props to you!
Twin stick is now the console standard for operating in 3D space, so they have to stay.
Triggers are now console standards for firing and for acceleration and brake, with bumpers operating as secondary functions (reloading, gear change etc). With shooting and driving being the console's gentre staples, they have to stay.
Dpad, face buttons and start/select/hub have been around since the first gamepads and are essential for the basic menu and character operation standards, so they have to stay.
That leaves pressing the sticks down, which in my opinion you can take or leave. They work ok as magnification and crouch toggles in the Halo series but I prefer the face and trigger buttons of CoD4 for this.
The problem is that controllers have evolved into their current state to best benefit the games that are being developed. They are now so ingrained in play mechanic you will cause as much confusion in attempting to streamline them, and the current games available would have to change accordingly.
if you still used a NES controller today would you really want to do a QCF and B to change your weapon? how about a final atomic buster move(2 circles) to shoot? because A is already used to open stuff and B is set to jump.
not me id rather hit 1 button.
think about it. if you could play call of duty with a NES controller it wouldnt work well. less isnt always batter. controllers are fine the way they are now. or at least the ps3 and 360 controllers. which if i recall doesnt the 360 also have r3 and l3 as well? wasnt just sony.
it was a good read and all but getting rid of buttons isnt the answer.
Fuck that. Those are the worse. Pressing the "X" or "A" button softly vs. hard to perform two different functions? In the heat of battle, that's practically impossible. Especially given an at-most 5 millimeter press-down range of movement of the button.
It was the worse in MGS, and I would never like to do that ever again, plz.
But I think the comment discussions of this month's articles really point out 1) How sacred these cows really are 2) Where we may or may not have seen positive exclusion of the cow 3) What we could possibly put in place of the cow
Also, Canabalt. Maybe with fewer buttons, we'll design with less redundancy? Of course we want to go right! We're escaping!
I know you weren't suggesting it, but vocal controls do exist (Tom Clancy's Endwar) and they evidently work ok, but I'd rather NOT shout at my television like a moron to control my games.
I'm thinking a refined wiimote could be the solution, preferably one that incorporates functions of the nunchuk and requires fewer attachments.
And on a second note, when did they make only two speeds available to an analog stick? Nowadays it's only slow and fast, no matter the differing pressure applied in-between. I think developers got lazy on that call.
I also remember when you could map a whole menu of weapons to one button (turok 2, goldeneye), but I'm not sure if it's a better way, but that would benefit from dropping the control pad on the "perfect" controller.
I actually liked the Nintendo 64 controller. I felt most games adapted to it really excellently, except for the fps's of the time (Despite owning Turok 2, my favorite games were platformers at the time.) But nothing's really changed since the dualshock 1 controller.
I think it's just a matter of opinion. I find today's controllers simple, and I would welcome more buttons with open arms.
I do agree that those button-setup things on loading screens are silly, but that actual button configurations of all controller-based games are far from overcomplicated. In terms of something like Gears of War, I felt that it would have actually benefited from having MORE buttons.
I also really love the NES controller, but I don't think it would be anywhere near sufficient enough for any of today's games.
Oh, and the N64 controller is also my favorite of any system, but I don't think I'll find anyone who agrees with me on that.
But again, it's just my opinion. Yours isn't any less valid than mine, but I think the game industry is doing it right the way it is: offer things like Natal for people who don't want to worry about dozens of buttons, and keep producing normal controllers for people like me.
Nice blog, man...
I collect video game controllers and hang them on the wall like trophies of the past and present. I'm still on the hunt for a Phillips CD-i controller and an Atari 5200 controller, among others. Also, I only collect the main console controllers that came with each system.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it has it's ups and downs and with some moderation it ends up being pretty decent, this whole button scheme dilemma.
Also, I liked the N64 controller, I thought it was pretty decent if put in the hands of the right designers. By which I mean the designers who understood that if they wanted to use the analog stick in their games they better not even consider having the D-Pad or L button do anything. Or the ones who made the D-Pad/Analog and L Button/Z Button interchangeable depending on which you found more comfortable. Overall I liked the functions of the N64 controller. It's probably in my top three controllers of all time. Although if you have any counter points about it you want to argue about I'm all for that.
as for your criticism of gears' controls. yes, there is a 'point of interest' button, but u are also free to look with the right joystick. its very handy to have a dedicated button to direct u to squadmates etc.
also, i disagree with an automelee attack when in close proximity to an enemy. this means that if ur shooting at someone and then another enemy near ur it will probably switch to melee and u might miss the chance to take out the guy u were originally attacking. the more controls are automated, the more likely it is that they will do things u dont want them to do. i have to agree with serpentish above. if youve ever played a game where 'cover mode' is initiated any time u are close to a wall u will know that it can be a very frustrating experience. and this is exactly the same kind of thing u are suggesting with an automatic melee.
and dont u dare say a damn thing about the n64 controller! it was an INTENTIONAL joke by nintendo. geez ;)
I have no problem with l3 and r3 - clever use of the analogue sticks.
Peace.
Again I am with Yojimbo on this one in saying that I have no issues with getting accustomed to controls for a new game.
I would say that expecting to be comfortable and familiar with the controls within 10 seconds is highly unreasonable. Taking ten minutes to get settled into a control scheme is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of time you are most likely going to devote to that particular game.
Sure back in the day with NES games, you could become familiar with the controls within 10 seconds. Asking that of today's games, with their ever increasing complexity, is like saying that it should be just as easy to repair a 2010 BMW Hybrid as it is a Model T Ford.
Also... taking OUT a map feature because it is rarely used? That is a terrible idea. Maps are there when you need to reference them. Some people do it less than others, some people do it more. If you ALWAYS had to reference a map, it would be a very fun game. Not having one at all though... that is just silly.
What it sounds like to me is that you are having trouble adjusting from old school consoles. There is no real possible way to have the complex games we have today without the control setups we do. It seems odd to formulate an entire argument about the terrible fuddled mess you believe controls are today and not even offer a real solution. You just generalize what you think may be a possibility, but don't even get behind one stance or another.
Keeping it simple may be enough for some people, but personally, I enjoy the complexity of the games we have today. The Wii exists for people who don't want that. Suggesting that all other consoles adopt the same practices is just ridiculous. There is room for both and the overwhelming majority of gamers seem to enjoy having MORE control over their games, not less.
I can't agree with this article in the slightest.
you collect controllers, thats awesome, do you have this PS1 dual stick? cause i have one but dont remember how or when i got it.
Do you really expect to get the controls down in a complex game within ten seconds? I know I’m coming from the viewpoint of a hardcore gamer who grew up with gaming since controllers were a lot simpler, but controllers are not that complex depending how you break it down. Triggers, shoulder buttons, and such all make up 12 buttons, but breaking it up can make it sound a lot more complex. I didn’t count the home button as 13 become it’s never needed for any game play functions. The d-pad, on the other hand, can count as an extra four buttons. Could many of the games today have been possible in the same way with fewer buttons? Are 12 buttons that much?
Just because the controls can take some getting used to doesn’t mean their bad. Now I won’t argue that there aren’t some poorly done controls or that developers use every button just to not have one odd button that does nothing, but complex games are not meant to be learned in about 20 minutes of play. Wouldn’t it be like complaining that a piano is too complex and either not taking the time to learn it or saying it should have less keys, thus taking away some of the possibilities of it? It sounds like many people give up on the controller without giving it a chance because they expect to be able to jump in right away. Not all games are meant to be learned right away. The simpler “grab and go” games still exist and can appeal to those that want to jump right into a game.
Seems like no one mention this yet. As for your example of the L3 and R3 button placements, that’s because they were added on later. Had they been there from the beginning, they might have been named differently. However, the analog sticks came a little later and could have been confusing to suddenly bump up the numbering of the shoulder buttons. L1 suddenly becoming L2 and L2 suddenly becoming L3 could have easily caused confusion back on the PSOne with analog sticks were still not the norm, at least on that console. I do see how clicking down the analog sticks could get confusing at first, especially if a game asks you to hit L3 or R3 and you have no idea what they are. I don’t suppose it would hurt to label them for newer players, especially since anyone used to the controller won’t be peaking at it while playing anyway.
I’ll give you that the Wiimote isn’t set up that great with the placement of the 1 and 2 buttons along with holding it like a NES controller. I found it pretty annoying to use that small d-pad for character movement, especially in Super Paper Mario when you move around in 3D as Mario. The minus and plus buttons are also often used as standard game play functions in various Wii games. So in one game, they can pause and bring up the menu, but in another game, they could be standard actions. Maybe the developers need a more universe standard for this kind of thing.
Context-sensitivity or multiple functions on a single button depending on the context of the game play at the time isn’t always ideal. The 3D Sonic games tend to have a button to spin dash or otherwise speed up, but it would change to a light dash if you were next to some rings. Often a trail of rings to light dash would be set up right next to an edge and if you hit the button when you weren’t close enough, it could mean you speeding off to your doom. Another example off the top of my head is Mass Effect had the shoot and melee butt actions on the same button. At one point you can knock out some people and not kill them. However, if they were slightly out of melee range, you could end up blasting them instead. Careless on the player’s end? Maybe, but it could also mean a design flaw on the developer’s end.
I think the developers would be better off making better use of the controllers in a smarter way. You complain now about too many buttons, but if there would less buttons, than there would be complaints (from you or otherwise) that the fewer buttons try to do too much. Fewer buttons might also lead to “shift” buttons that you hold down to change the function of another button. Have controllers really gotten that much more complex in the last ten years or so? If anything, how about an extra simpler controller for games that don’t need all the extra buttons like many XBLA, PSN, and fighting games?
I feel that given the necessity to have complex controllers for more complex games, companies have come a long way in terms of finding the most ergonomic, natural feeling controllers that we have ever had in the entire history of gaming. I think that games--and controls for the games--have evolved together in the most logical way possible. To reduce the buttons on the controllers or limit the control the gamer has in the game itself, would just be taking a major step backward.
I'll put it this way. I play guitar and piano. Playing a guitar or piano is so rewarding because they are complex instruments. What you are suggesting is akin to saying that guitars are too complex and we should all be using Guitar Hero controllers to play real music. Not everyone is meant to play a musical instrument... not everyone is meant to play the most cutting edge, modern games. It takes effort and skill. I don't feel like my experience should be compromised because someone else can come to grips with "too many buttons".
That is supposed to say "CAN'T come to grips with 'too many buttons'".