surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
"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'."
Wow. That is not elistist in the slightest. Did you just equate learning an instrument to playing a game? Does it take effort and skill to read a book or watch a movie, excluding the requirements that you are literate and are not easily distracted? Don't give this "my experience shouldn't be compromised" nonsense. That's exactly the attitude why you guys don't think these control configurations are all that bad and why developers don't feel the need to change things up.
Wow. That is not elistist in the slightest. Did you just equate learning an instrument to playing a game? Does it take effort and skill to read a book or watch a movie, excluding the requirements that you are literate and are not easily distracted? Don't give this "my experience shouldn't be compromised" nonsense. That's exactly the attitude why you guys don't think these control configurations are all that bad and why developers don't feel the need to change things up.
Thanks for the article. It's people like you we have to thank for the pussification of games. Seriously, you cannot remember where L3 and R3 on a ps2/3 controller are? I hate to break this to you, but video games are not for you. I cannot even imagine how you could deal with PC games where we have about half the keyboard mapped to functions.
Sure, sometimes developers do make bad decisions when they decide how to map functions to the controller. However, this seems pretty rare. Constantly bitching about controls points to having little to no skill.
In ZOE2, you control a highly advanced flying mech. What, did you think it was going to be easy? Actually, the control scheme is quite intuitive, but it requires some skill (gee, there's that word again) to master.
I'm sure someday Microsoft will figure out a way to use Natal completely as a replacement for the controller, or Nintendo will ditch the controller completely for some kind of full body motion sensor, so those seated at the kid's table can play "big boy" games, too. Until then, please just stop bitching. Gaming was never intended to be easy or accessible to everyone.
Sure, sometimes developers do make bad decisions when they decide how to map functions to the controller. However, this seems pretty rare. Constantly bitching about controls points to having little to no skill.
In ZOE2, you control a highly advanced flying mech. What, did you think it was going to be easy? Actually, the control scheme is quite intuitive, but it requires some skill (gee, there's that word again) to master.
I'm sure someday Microsoft will figure out a way to use Natal completely as a replacement for the controller, or Nintendo will ditch the controller completely for some kind of full body motion sensor, so those seated at the kid's table can play "big boy" games, too. Until then, please just stop bitching. Gaming was never intended to be easy or accessible to everyone.
So... does SexualChocolate take a laptop to the toilet? Or does he have one next to his computer?
And I would have to argue that it depends on the games you play with a controller, FPS games are well suited to them.
And automagically meleeing in close quarters would not be good in multiplayer scenarios... such as on FPS games.
Basically, I can't agree with most you say as I play mostly FPS games.
FPS GAMES.
And @cockaroach
Since when do all games have two movement speeds?
And I would have to argue that it depends on the games you play with a controller, FPS games are well suited to them.
And automagically meleeing in close quarters would not be good in multiplayer scenarios... such as on FPS games.
Basically, I can't agree with most you say as I play mostly FPS games.
FPS GAMES.
And @cockaroach
Since when do all games have two movement speeds?
Sweet fancy Jesus MegaStryke, whatever you do, do NOT play a game on a PC. Not even ZORK.
Really? I have never had an issue with controllers themselves. Some games have terrible controls, non-intuitive controls, some people map their Y-Axis to normal instead of inverted (as God intended...), but that doesn't mean that controllers are broken.
BAAAW-ing about 10 minute learning curves is nothing to the finesse you get when you know the controls to a game. And the only intuitiveness I expect out of the controls of a game is when I'm playing a sequel. If I'm playing a new title, I want to take the time to learn the controls and make sure I'm using them to the best of my abilities.
You ever noticed how Nintendo titles have those excruciatingly long early bits to them where it covers all sorts of basic commands and button presses? Like how you can't actually swing a sword or dodge until the game tells you how to do it and then suddenly it works? THAT bugs me more than fiddling with controls for 10 minutes.
I do think that context driven controls are kind of a damper on the experience, but if a title has the depth to present me with a game that has driving, shooting, jumping, running, whatever, I'll take a different set of controls for each situation. You lose some of the inherent control of the game or character in the process by not doing that.
Tell me how you'd manage to play some of these games without the mapped buttons? Gears is an easy target with the Y button, but it's mapping out buttons that serve no valued purpose to the game and only serve to showcase the focus of a particular cutscene. If you press it, you look at that area. You're still free to look at it, but that one button press immediately focuses the camera in that direction. Given the nature of the title, some quick visuals are all you get of the danger that's incoming.
Mapping a button to melee? No issues there either. I seem to recall using a shotgun when playing in close quarters. If my character is meant to alternate between melee damage and gunfire when going from short to long range combat, I think I'd be boned using a shotgun.
You raise some serious concerns, but your whole issue never really tries to solve anything or offer suggestions of how to fix this perceived problem of yours.
Game developers gave us these deeper controls and features to add additional levels of realism or gameplay to titles. I like having a dedicated button for a flashlight in Left 4 Dead and I wouldn't have it be any other way.
If I am playing a simplistic game with simplistic controls I am perfectly content to keep that and enjoy it for what it is. I'm not looking for individual limb control from Mario in Super Mario Brothers by mashing buttons like mad.
I re-read the article and just cannot find the point of what you're trying to say.
What are less buttons going to offer us other than less intuitive gameplay? The reason why you were able to do so much with one button is because the developer had to maneuver so many controls around a single action button. Christ, can you imagine the skill set of someone playing SFII had they had 30 buttons at their reach? Yeah, it'd be stalemates all over the place. Games like that are inherently designed to take advantage of learning strings of commands to maneuver yourself and win the game.
Games that don't use that today are using the extra buttons on controllers to delve into new depths of gameplay and genres that you just wouldn't do back then. Would night vision in COD4 have worked quite as effectively if you could just walk into a room and it turned on/off? Not to me it wouldn't. There were instances in the game where having it on made the gameplay easier for me, so I'd leave it on longer since it improved my ability to see my foes.
So I should sacrifice my ability to enjoy a game so that you can have auto-on/off? Or maybe have to mash out something akin to a cheat code worthy string of button presses to activate it?
No thanks. If I wanted to go back to hammering out the Konami code to play a game, I'll go play Gradius or Contra.
Really? I have never had an issue with controllers themselves. Some games have terrible controls, non-intuitive controls, some people map their Y-Axis to normal instead of inverted (as God intended...), but that doesn't mean that controllers are broken.
BAAAW-ing about 10 minute learning curves is nothing to the finesse you get when you know the controls to a game. And the only intuitiveness I expect out of the controls of a game is when I'm playing a sequel. If I'm playing a new title, I want to take the time to learn the controls and make sure I'm using them to the best of my abilities.
You ever noticed how Nintendo titles have those excruciatingly long early bits to them where it covers all sorts of basic commands and button presses? Like how you can't actually swing a sword or dodge until the game tells you how to do it and then suddenly it works? THAT bugs me more than fiddling with controls for 10 minutes.
I do think that context driven controls are kind of a damper on the experience, but if a title has the depth to present me with a game that has driving, shooting, jumping, running, whatever, I'll take a different set of controls for each situation. You lose some of the inherent control of the game or character in the process by not doing that.
Tell me how you'd manage to play some of these games without the mapped buttons? Gears is an easy target with the Y button, but it's mapping out buttons that serve no valued purpose to the game and only serve to showcase the focus of a particular cutscene. If you press it, you look at that area. You're still free to look at it, but that one button press immediately focuses the camera in that direction. Given the nature of the title, some quick visuals are all you get of the danger that's incoming.
Mapping a button to melee? No issues there either. I seem to recall using a shotgun when playing in close quarters. If my character is meant to alternate between melee damage and gunfire when going from short to long range combat, I think I'd be boned using a shotgun.
You raise some serious concerns, but your whole issue never really tries to solve anything or offer suggestions of how to fix this perceived problem of yours.
Game developers gave us these deeper controls and features to add additional levels of realism or gameplay to titles. I like having a dedicated button for a flashlight in Left 4 Dead and I wouldn't have it be any other way.
If I am playing a simplistic game with simplistic controls I am perfectly content to keep that and enjoy it for what it is. I'm not looking for individual limb control from Mario in Super Mario Brothers by mashing buttons like mad.
I re-read the article and just cannot find the point of what you're trying to say.
What are less buttons going to offer us other than less intuitive gameplay? The reason why you were able to do so much with one button is because the developer had to maneuver so many controls around a single action button. Christ, can you imagine the skill set of someone playing SFII had they had 30 buttons at their reach? Yeah, it'd be stalemates all over the place. Games like that are inherently designed to take advantage of learning strings of commands to maneuver yourself and win the game.
Games that don't use that today are using the extra buttons on controllers to delve into new depths of gameplay and genres that you just wouldn't do back then. Would night vision in COD4 have worked quite as effectively if you could just walk into a room and it turned on/off? Not to me it wouldn't. There were instances in the game where having it on made the gameplay easier for me, so I'd leave it on longer since it improved my ability to see my foes.
So I should sacrifice my ability to enjoy a game so that you can have auto-on/off? Or maybe have to mash out something akin to a cheat code worthy string of button presses to activate it?
No thanks. If I wanted to go back to hammering out the Konami code to play a game, I'll go play Gradius or Contra.
There are already games without controllers. They're called movies.
Seriously though, different controls work for different games. If every game used a Wii controller, oh god, just thinking about it pisses me off.
In any event, I hope controllers don't die, because I would stop playing games.
Seriously though, different controls work for different games. If every game used a Wii controller, oh god, just thinking about it pisses me off.
In any event, I hope controllers don't die, because I would stop playing games.
I wonder what's your take on Bayonetta's *easy* mode given that I believe it works somewhat like this on a software level - removing complexity from the game for extreme ease of control and a flat learning curve.
Me I prefer to play my games and most controller issues are a lack of familiarity or incompetency on the designers parts. Granted some of the old remote dial controllers are tragic abortions of design concepts. Like a lot of people here we obviously enjoy different aspects of gaming.
Me I prefer to play my games and most controller issues are a lack of familiarity or incompetency on the designers parts. Granted some of the old remote dial controllers are tragic abortions of design concepts. Like a lot of people here we obviously enjoy different aspects of gaming.
I guess my point is that all of the buttons are completely easily accessible. I grew up with a PC in the house and never played console games until I was an adult.
As a result, it took me longer to adapt to gameplay on the console. Yet, I did adapt and I prefer playing games on console to PC these days. Why? Everything is accessible and really easy to pick up, even if the controls are slightly different for each game. I like the balance between a fair degree of dynamism inherent in a game with a lot of controls to the relative simplicity in a game with two or three core controls. The current controllers have the flexibility to cater to both types of gameplay. I don't see a need for drastic changes in this area.
The day I give controllers the boot is the day I can play a game by plugging my brain into the console.
As a result, it took me longer to adapt to gameplay on the console. Yet, I did adapt and I prefer playing games on console to PC these days. Why? Everything is accessible and really easy to pick up, even if the controls are slightly different for each game. I like the balance between a fair degree of dynamism inherent in a game with a lot of controls to the relative simplicity in a game with two or three core controls. The current controllers have the flexibility to cater to both types of gameplay. I don't see a need for drastic changes in this area.
The day I give controllers the boot is the day I can play a game by plugging my brain into the console.
Someone needs to make a control system as intuitive and simple as the nervous system. I mean, its worked for how long?
Part of what I enjoy about games is the complexity. Both in the controls as well as the coordination. Some games still surprise me with how well they map the controls, take Demon's Souls for instance. The combat in that game is SOOOOO rewarding. Part of that is because of how well the controls are mapped. If the controls were less complex, I doubt the game would feel as rewarding. When you fight you really feel it. That's what keeps you playing such a punishing game, it FEELS good to play.
I like the PS3 controller. I'm glad it has changed very little over the years.
I like the PS3 controller. I'm glad it has changed very little over the years.
I find a disturbing number of posters don't actually believe that the current configurations are getting too complex. I find it interesting that there are actually advocates for more buttons. Above that, I find it just plain odd that nobody here is saying (or at least admitting) that it's simply not worthwhile to learn a new control scheme for every good game that comes out when games are as short as they are.
To each his own, but when I pick up a ten hour game, I don't want to be unfamiliar with the controls because every button has a function. Many modern games use two control pads and at least ten button inputs, each of which can have multiple functions. When trying to solve, say, a platforming puzzle; I don't want to necesarily need to have a mastery of a dozen or so functions and then be required to pick the correct one for the puzzle; I would rather have one function that can be used many different ways on many different styles of puzzles. Heck, even Legend of Zelda is better than the current norm; I simply assign my many tools to one of four, clearly labelled on-screen buttons and I know exactly what each button does and can change what it does as necessary.
Incidently, I do see how the wii could make the complex games of today much simpler. The IR pointer function could easily make first person shooting more intuitive than cleverly manipulating two analogue stick simultaneously, and the button priority is incredibly obvious - the big, clearly marked A button does primary actions, and the trigger does other stuff, like shoot. Heck, on the wii you could really bring the FPS genre back to it's routes; make an FPS that only uses the A, B, and analogue stick with the IR pointer to shoot. That would be a lot easier than the mess for even some very popular games like Call of Duty.
To each his own, but when I pick up a ten hour game, I don't want to be unfamiliar with the controls because every button has a function. Many modern games use two control pads and at least ten button inputs, each of which can have multiple functions. When trying to solve, say, a platforming puzzle; I don't want to necesarily need to have a mastery of a dozen or so functions and then be required to pick the correct one for the puzzle; I would rather have one function that can be used many different ways on many different styles of puzzles. Heck, even Legend of Zelda is better than the current norm; I simply assign my many tools to one of four, clearly labelled on-screen buttons and I know exactly what each button does and can change what it does as necessary.
Incidently, I do see how the wii could make the complex games of today much simpler. The IR pointer function could easily make first person shooting more intuitive than cleverly manipulating two analogue stick simultaneously, and the button priority is incredibly obvious - the big, clearly marked A button does primary actions, and the trigger does other stuff, like shoot. Heck, on the wii you could really bring the FPS genre back to it's routes; make an FPS that only uses the A, B, and analogue stick with the IR pointer to shoot. That would be a lot easier than the mess for even some very popular games like Call of Duty.
Wow, you really seem to have pissed a lot of people off somehow. chronomitch please calm the fuck down. State your opinion, but this article was fairly well written and does not deserve your acid filled response.
Personally this is why the NES pad is still my favorite controller of all. Though the 360 pad oddly enough is third (SNES being second and Genny being fourth). But it depends greatly on the game.
FPS and a couple other genre NEED all those buttons, and now that the FPS market has a standard or two (Halo/CoD) it's intuitive if you've played any of the ones leading up to that game.
Shumps don't require more buttons and usually don't map anything unless you want them to.
Fighting games? They only use what they need and let you map shortcuts.
But 3d platformers ALWAYS get nailed for shitty camera controls. Then again I loathe most of the 3d platformer genre anyway, so what do I know eh? Beyond shoot/jump/melee what other buttons should you need?
Also fuck clicking a stick (except in the FPS genre).
Finally, was it just me or was there some text missing in certain spots? The last line reads like so for me: "However, if we keep going down this particular road, who knows how many of us resilient gaming stalwarts will grow disinterested because the men"
Personally this is why the NES pad is still my favorite controller of all. Though the 360 pad oddly enough is third (SNES being second and Genny being fourth). But it depends greatly on the game.
FPS and a couple other genre NEED all those buttons, and now that the FPS market has a standard or two (Halo/CoD) it's intuitive if you've played any of the ones leading up to that game.
Shumps don't require more buttons and usually don't map anything unless you want them to.
Fighting games? They only use what they need and let you map shortcuts.
But 3d platformers ALWAYS get nailed for shitty camera controls. Then again I loathe most of the 3d platformer genre anyway, so what do I know eh? Beyond shoot/jump/melee what other buttons should you need?
Also fuck clicking a stick (except in the FPS genre).
Finally, was it just me or was there some text missing in certain spots? The last line reads like so for me: "However, if we keep going down this particular road, who knows how many of us resilient gaming stalwarts will grow disinterested because the men"
@Lil Jorssche -- Yeah, that would be great. I'm hoping we'll have immersive enhanced reality sometime in my life. With recent advancements in 3d rendering and display technology as well as reality-enhancing overlays (seen in things like iphone apps) there is some pretty crazy stuff that's possible even now.
If anyone knows the show "Dennou Coil," some of the tech in there (such as reality enhancing overlays) is probably possible right now, which is damn cool.
If anyone knows the show "Dennou Coil," some of the tech in there (such as reality enhancing overlays) is probably possible right now, which is damn cool.
THIS is what's known as a "sacred cow." I'm so happy I decided to type this up. Look at all the people who feel uncomfortable at the notion that they play with fewer buttons.
I hope I'm not being too forward when I say I nailed this month's musing.
I hope I'm not being too forward when I say I nailed this month's musing.
@Rabite -- I agree with your point about standard FPS controls allowing adaptability. I expect if I'm playing a certain type of game (e.g. an FPS) that it will tend to have a certain control layout. Same with 3d platformers.
There are some games that depart from the standard format, but most developers realize what people are familiar with and layout the controls accordingly. So, I don't have to relearn the controls every time I pick up a game. I can go straight from playing one FPS to playing another with maybe one or two minor adjustments in my play style and controller functionality.
Racing sims used to be bother me because some racers preferred radically different control-layouts compared to others, but pretty much all racing games today allow for totally different control layouts adjustable from the main menu (same with a lot of FPS' too).
There are some games that depart from the standard format, but most developers realize what people are familiar with and layout the controls accordingly. So, I don't have to relearn the controls every time I pick up a game. I can go straight from playing one FPS to playing another with maybe one or two minor adjustments in my play style and controller functionality.
Racing sims used to be bother me because some racers preferred radically different control-layouts compared to others, but pretty much all racing games today allow for totally different control layouts adjustable from the main menu (same with a lot of FPS' too).
"I hate to break this to you, but video games are not for you."
Realy?
"Constantly bitching about controls points to having little to no skill."
REAAALLYY?!?
"Gaming was never intended to be easy or accessible to everyone."
.......
@Chronomitch
Was that a serious post or are you under the age of 12? (If you are... well... then its excusable.)
Realy?
"Constantly bitching about controls points to having little to no skill."
REAAALLYY?!?
"Gaming was never intended to be easy or accessible to everyone."
.......
@Chronomitch
Was that a serious post or are you under the age of 12? (If you are... well... then its excusable.)
@megaStryke -- I don't think this is really a sacred cow anymore, since Nintendo already came out with their Wiimote. Though, like I said, if everything used a Wiimote I would stop gaming.
I like variety. I say, the more controllers the better (within reason; I don't want to have to buy a new fucking Bobby Kotick guitar for every stupid music game). If there are a variety of first-party controllers, then you have the best of all worlds where gamers can gravitate to the controls they prefer and developers have a range of controls to choose from in development (though maybe they should knock the controller prices a bit lower if there are multiple controllers).
Remember "Steel Battalion?" That game was awesome and had some of the most complicated controls ever put out there. I'm not saying I want this to be the norm, but I certainly want companies to try experiments like this every once in awhile.
I like variety. I say, the more controllers the better (within reason; I don't want to have to buy a new fucking Bobby Kotick guitar for every stupid music game). If there are a variety of first-party controllers, then you have the best of all worlds where gamers can gravitate to the controls they prefer and developers have a range of controls to choose from in development (though maybe they should knock the controller prices a bit lower if there are multiple controllers).
Remember "Steel Battalion?" That game was awesome and had some of the most complicated controls ever put out there. I'm not saying I want this to be the norm, but I certainly want companies to try experiments like this every once in awhile.
@megaStryke
"THIS is what's known as a "sacred cow." I'm so happy I decided to type this up. Look at all the people who feel uncomfortable at the notion that they play with fewer buttons. "
Exactly. Bravo, man.
"THIS is what's known as a "sacred cow." I'm so happy I decided to type this up. Look at all the people who feel uncomfortable at the notion that they play with fewer buttons. "
Exactly. Bravo, man.
Stop quoting Sean Malstrom and his Blue Ocean Strategy bullshit!
Oh wait, wrong post, even if I do see too many familiar faces.
As for megaStryke, I suppose I can sort of agree with the basic gist of your cblog. Congrats on the promotion.
Oh wait, wrong post, even if I do see too many familiar faces.
As for megaStryke, I suppose I can sort of agree with the basic gist of your cblog. Congrats on the promotion.
Here's a link to the Steel Battalion controller image. I'm too lazy to resize and upload to a different image server.
@Megastryke
So what you are saying... is that it shouldn't take effort or skill to play a complex game like Call of Duty or Skate? How does that make any sense? There are always alternatives to complex games. Stick to those if you have issues with the more complicated ones.
So what you are saying... is that it shouldn't take effort or skill to play a complex game like Call of Duty or Skate? How does that make any sense? There are always alternatives to complex games. Stick to those if you have issues with the more complicated ones.
@megaStryke
I apologize for my earlier comments. The personal insults were uncalled for.
However, I stand by the points I made. The reason I'm angry has nothing to do with playing with fewer buttons but everything to do with the overall gaming experience.
If a game's mechanics are simple (like a Mario game), then the control scheme should be simple. If the mechanics are supposed to be complex, like controlling a mech, then the controls should be as well. Some games are meant to be inherently fun, like Super Mario Brothers, but other games derive their fun from mastering the game's mechanics and control scheme, such as Street Fighter.
This is where a discussion of skill, challenge, and a rewarding experience come in, but I'm sure you can see where I'm going here, so I'm not going to bore you with details.
Yes, there are instances where the developers could have made better design decisions (context sensitive functionality, for example), but few of the games you mentioned served as good examples. For example, in ZOE2, L3 and R3 are only used to respond to Aida's comments. They serve no real purpose in combat other than entertainment value and, as such, can safely be ignored. If L3 and R3 were mapped to more important functions, you might have a point, but they are not.
As to GOW, the "quick look" button SHOULD be mapped to another button because you don't want to accidentally activate that function during an intense firefight. Likewise, the "quick look" functionality is needed because you probably will not be able to spare the time during an intense battle to manually move the camera to look for a visual cue.
Some video games are meant to simulate an experience (to a certain degree). A balance must be maintained between realism (and the ensuing frustrating game mechanics and control scheme) and simplicity (to keep the game simple to play). Taking an example from article, I would find automatically switching to a melee weapon at close range in an FPS such as COD4 to take away too much of the game's challenge. When devs start doing things like these, it feels more like a semi-interactive movie than a challenging game. Speaking of which, just take a look at the last Prince of Persia game. The controls were so forgiving that the game's platforming elements held little challenge, which is supposed to be the series' forte.
The problem with your article is not your general thesis (that game devs should make simpler controls) but the sweeping generalities you make and the poor examples you use to bolster your argument. While I was reading your article, I kept thinking that you were somehow joking (Does he really think the "quick look" button in GOW is that much of a burden?). I'm sure there are instances where your logic would be sound, but given your examples, it makes you come away looking for a perpetual easy mode in which the game holds your hand through the entire experience. Thanks, but I'll take a game which takes a few minutes to learn the controls (and gives me more control) over that situation any day.
I apologize for my earlier comments. The personal insults were uncalled for.
However, I stand by the points I made. The reason I'm angry has nothing to do with playing with fewer buttons but everything to do with the overall gaming experience.
If a game's mechanics are simple (like a Mario game), then the control scheme should be simple. If the mechanics are supposed to be complex, like controlling a mech, then the controls should be as well. Some games are meant to be inherently fun, like Super Mario Brothers, but other games derive their fun from mastering the game's mechanics and control scheme, such as Street Fighter.
This is where a discussion of skill, challenge, and a rewarding experience come in, but I'm sure you can see where I'm going here, so I'm not going to bore you with details.
Yes, there are instances where the developers could have made better design decisions (context sensitive functionality, for example), but few of the games you mentioned served as good examples. For example, in ZOE2, L3 and R3 are only used to respond to Aida's comments. They serve no real purpose in combat other than entertainment value and, as such, can safely be ignored. If L3 and R3 were mapped to more important functions, you might have a point, but they are not.
As to GOW, the "quick look" button SHOULD be mapped to another button because you don't want to accidentally activate that function during an intense firefight. Likewise, the "quick look" functionality is needed because you probably will not be able to spare the time during an intense battle to manually move the camera to look for a visual cue.
Some video games are meant to simulate an experience (to a certain degree). A balance must be maintained between realism (and the ensuing frustrating game mechanics and control scheme) and simplicity (to keep the game simple to play). Taking an example from article, I would find automatically switching to a melee weapon at close range in an FPS such as COD4 to take away too much of the game's challenge. When devs start doing things like these, it feels more like a semi-interactive movie than a challenging game. Speaking of which, just take a look at the last Prince of Persia game. The controls were so forgiving that the game's platforming elements held little challenge, which is supposed to be the series' forte.
The problem with your article is not your general thesis (that game devs should make simpler controls) but the sweeping generalities you make and the poor examples you use to bolster your argument. While I was reading your article, I kept thinking that you were somehow joking (Does he really think the "quick look" button in GOW is that much of a burden?). I'm sure there are instances where your logic would be sound, but given your examples, it makes you come away looking for a perpetual easy mode in which the game holds your hand through the entire experience. Thanks, but I'll take a game which takes a few minutes to learn the controls (and gives me more control) over that situation any day.
I mean this in the most respectful way possible: I completely disagree with just about everything you have to say in this blog.
Regarding the Gears controls, the function of the Y button is to point out to the character events/locations/enemies of particular interest. Yes, you can still look at the stuff manually with the sticks, but the point is that you might not know to look in a particular direction. Even the masters of player direction at Valve can't guarantee that every player will notice everything they should.
And then the idea that the character should automatically melee attack with the fire button when an enemy is close is just ridiculous. Suppose you are rocking the shotgun, which is only effective up close. You intend to blow a Locust's head off with the shotgun, but instead you punch him in the face? Or, in Call of Duty, you sneak up behind somebody, and you have the option to cap him in the back of the head, but that would give away your location. In this case, the player would opt for the knife attack, and it would feel clunky and unsure if there weren't a dedicated button for it.
Putting buttons in the "click the stick in" position is a great idea, for exactly the reason you argue earlier in the post. You complain about having to move your thumb off the right analog stick to press any of the face buttons, WELL HERE IS THE BUTTON FOR YOU. Calling them "L3"/"R3" might be confusing the first time ever, but after you learn it once, is it really a problem?
Games are more complicated now than ever. You want a single context-sensitive button for everything? Perhaps you've overlooked one of the biggest complaints about Gears of War--that the A button does too many things. So somebody might want to run or roll, but then they stick to a wall. You want to stick fire, melee, jump, talk, interact, et cetera all on that one button? That's stupid.
Regarding the Gears controls, the function of the Y button is to point out to the character events/locations/enemies of particular interest. Yes, you can still look at the stuff manually with the sticks, but the point is that you might not know to look in a particular direction. Even the masters of player direction at Valve can't guarantee that every player will notice everything they should.
And then the idea that the character should automatically melee attack with the fire button when an enemy is close is just ridiculous. Suppose you are rocking the shotgun, which is only effective up close. You intend to blow a Locust's head off with the shotgun, but instead you punch him in the face? Or, in Call of Duty, you sneak up behind somebody, and you have the option to cap him in the back of the head, but that would give away your location. In this case, the player would opt for the knife attack, and it would feel clunky and unsure if there weren't a dedicated button for it.
Putting buttons in the "click the stick in" position is a great idea, for exactly the reason you argue earlier in the post. You complain about having to move your thumb off the right analog stick to press any of the face buttons, WELL HERE IS THE BUTTON FOR YOU. Calling them "L3"/"R3" might be confusing the first time ever, but after you learn it once, is it really a problem?
Games are more complicated now than ever. You want a single context-sensitive button for everything? Perhaps you've overlooked one of the biggest complaints about Gears of War--that the A button does too many things. So somebody might want to run or roll, but then they stick to a wall. You want to stick fire, melee, jump, talk, interact, et cetera all on that one button? That's stupid.
This article is so epically brutal considering it's on a video game site. I mean, current controllers aren't bad at all, and any self-respecting gamer should have literally no problem learning a few controls. If you are turned off by having to spend a minute figuring out the controls, then gaming isn't your thing. Also, the Wiimote...and motion controls in general...is completely inferior for gaming for anybody who's been playing games for any respectable length of time.
I don't even know why I am responding to this actually. I am going to go play some complicated, convoluted games and stop worrying about it.
@mkshiranui
So I've noticed! Thumbs up!
@everyone else
Game complexity should come from the GAME, not from learning the controls. If you are worried that a simpler controller will not give you access to everything you need, perhaps it is time that games themselves became simpler.
So I've noticed! Thumbs up!
@everyone else
Game complexity should come from the GAME, not from learning the controls. If you are worried that a simpler controller will not give you access to everything you need, perhaps it is time that games themselves became simpler.
@ Ronsauce -
So, when you say "self respecting" do you mean people who define themselves as gamers?
Learning "a few" controls isn't the problem. Super Mario Bros. games have "a few" controls. The ridiculously steep learning curve on playing Oblivion is the problem.
To put it bluntly, people like you see no problem with the direction controls are headed; but people like you are in the minority. The new generation of gamers the wii is creating doesn't want to spend their free time learning unusual control schemes and having to fiddle with an unintuitive, quite intimidating controller. They want to have fun right away, and get as far away from the work of mastering a control scheme as possible. They are arcade gamers; addictive gameplay in an interesting context is the only things that matter to them, and they are now the majority. And gaming must meet their needs because they represent the money; in fact, to not simplify the control scheme is to make this industry go the way of computer gaming.
I kind of agree with the arcade gamers; more unintuitive button presses = less addictive gameplay, and I want my games addictively fun before anything else.
So, when you say "self respecting" do you mean people who define themselves as gamers?
Learning "a few" controls isn't the problem. Super Mario Bros. games have "a few" controls. The ridiculously steep learning curve on playing Oblivion is the problem.
To put it bluntly, people like you see no problem with the direction controls are headed; but people like you are in the minority. The new generation of gamers the wii is creating doesn't want to spend their free time learning unusual control schemes and having to fiddle with an unintuitive, quite intimidating controller. They want to have fun right away, and get as far away from the work of mastering a control scheme as possible. They are arcade gamers; addictive gameplay in an interesting context is the only things that matter to them, and they are now the majority. And gaming must meet their needs because they represent the money; in fact, to not simplify the control scheme is to make this industry go the way of computer gaming.
I kind of agree with the arcade gamers; more unintuitive button presses = less addictive gameplay, and I want my games addictively fun before anything else.
@megaStryke: I respectfully disagree that games need to be made simpler. I'm not against having some games with simple control schemes (a la 'Splosion Man), but you literally cannot do a first person shooter on a console without two analog sticks (or one stick and one IR pointer), and at least four buttons, if not all ten. Suggesting that games become simpler is condemning at least one genre to death. And considering it's one of the most popular genres in gaming today, it's just completely infeasible.
@ MegaStryke-
The problem is that many of us don't want the controller to be simpler OR games to be simpler. So this- "If you are worried that a simpler controller will not give you access to everything you need, perhaps it is time that games themselves became simpler"- doesn't really apply to those of us who have no problem with game or controller complexity as-is.
Is it a sacred cow? Clearly to some, it seems to be. My reaction is not so much a visceral one, like "WHAT?!?! We can't have LESS buttons!!!" as it is a "Why? I think it's fine how it is." Not all of us who are happy with controllers the way that they are are simply afraid of change in general. Perhaps we actually like using controllers the way that they currently are. To imply that we don't really know what we want and are somehow just afraid of change (or worse yet, that we are giving developers a "pass" for not simplifying/streamlining things, when really we simply don't have a problem with how things currently are) is a bit condescending.
I did enjoy the article, like everyone else seemed to, but I also disagree with it. It's a personal preference thing. I personally feel that while it is intimidating to get a controller diagram or button list and be expected to just play right away like a pro, almost every game these days has an in-game tutorial, which usually does an outstanding job of acclimating you to what button does what in a short amount of time. The best ones do so while making the tutorial an actual part of the game that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
I agree that it's the developer's job to limit excess complexity, but I disagree that the solution is either to have less buttons or to have developers use less of the ones that we have. By using a button layout that makes sense or taking advantage of context sensitive commands, you can move a long way towards accessibility for everyone. Also, I'm a big advocate of similar games having an unwritten agreement to use similar control schemes (for instance FPS games using the right trigger/R2 for shooting, etc.). Even if they don't, the customization of controls these days is a very user-friendly development that helps people map the buttons in a way that makes sense to them.
The problem is that many of us don't want the controller to be simpler OR games to be simpler. So this- "If you are worried that a simpler controller will not give you access to everything you need, perhaps it is time that games themselves became simpler"- doesn't really apply to those of us who have no problem with game or controller complexity as-is.
Is it a sacred cow? Clearly to some, it seems to be. My reaction is not so much a visceral one, like "WHAT?!?! We can't have LESS buttons!!!" as it is a "Why? I think it's fine how it is." Not all of us who are happy with controllers the way that they are are simply afraid of change in general. Perhaps we actually like using controllers the way that they currently are. To imply that we don't really know what we want and are somehow just afraid of change (or worse yet, that we are giving developers a "pass" for not simplifying/streamlining things, when really we simply don't have a problem with how things currently are) is a bit condescending.
I did enjoy the article, like everyone else seemed to, but I also disagree with it. It's a personal preference thing. I personally feel that while it is intimidating to get a controller diagram or button list and be expected to just play right away like a pro, almost every game these days has an in-game tutorial, which usually does an outstanding job of acclimating you to what button does what in a short amount of time. The best ones do so while making the tutorial an actual part of the game that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
I agree that it's the developer's job to limit excess complexity, but I disagree that the solution is either to have less buttons or to have developers use less of the ones that we have. By using a button layout that makes sense or taking advantage of context sensitive commands, you can move a long way towards accessibility for everyone. Also, I'm a big advocate of similar games having an unwritten agreement to use similar control schemes (for instance FPS games using the right trigger/R2 for shooting, etc.). Even if they don't, the customization of controls these days is a very user-friendly development that helps people map the buttons in a way that makes sense to them.
@Dexter345: I gonna say I think your comment is spot on.
@megaStryke: But seriously, are the controls these days really that complex? While there are real examples of poorly designed controls, it almost sounds like you're making a mountain out of an ant hill. There's room for both simple games with simple controls and complex games with complex controls. It almost sounds like you think complex games with complex controls shouldn't exist.
You say that game complexity should come from the game. Fair enough, but learning how to control the game is a part of it. The way you way it makes it sound like this takes a lot of work. It can actually be quite simple, especially for games that allow customize controls. Most FPS games share similar control functions, so it's not like you have to re-learn all the buttons for every game. Once you take a very brief time to learn the controls, you no longer really think about them, but instead, just focus on the game itself. When you want to run, take cover, fire, and throw a grenade, you’re not thinking of pressing the buttons while you do those actions, but you just naturally hit the buttons. If you can do this with a few buttons, why not a few more? You also complain that that some people here are acting elitist, which is true enough, but it's not at all elitist to say that games should become simpler? How does that not sound like "I think controls are too complex, therefore developers should make them simpler because I said so"?
That's the main point I want to know. Why can't both simple control and complex control games exist? Why does complex controls have to go? It may be sacred, but it doesn't mean it's bad, but just different.
@megaStryke: But seriously, are the controls these days really that complex? While there are real examples of poorly designed controls, it almost sounds like you're making a mountain out of an ant hill. There's room for both simple games with simple controls and complex games with complex controls. It almost sounds like you think complex games with complex controls shouldn't exist.
You say that game complexity should come from the game. Fair enough, but learning how to control the game is a part of it. The way you way it makes it sound like this takes a lot of work. It can actually be quite simple, especially for games that allow customize controls. Most FPS games share similar control functions, so it's not like you have to re-learn all the buttons for every game. Once you take a very brief time to learn the controls, you no longer really think about them, but instead, just focus on the game itself. When you want to run, take cover, fire, and throw a grenade, you’re not thinking of pressing the buttons while you do those actions, but you just naturally hit the buttons. If you can do this with a few buttons, why not a few more? You also complain that that some people here are acting elitist, which is true enough, but it's not at all elitist to say that games should become simpler? How does that not sound like "I think controls are too complex, therefore developers should make them simpler because I said so"?
That's the main point I want to know. Why can't both simple control and complex control games exist? Why does complex controls have to go? It may be sacred, but it doesn't mean it's bad, but just different.
I think you're wrong about how to hold the N64 controller. My whole N64 career I held the 2 outside prongs and could reach every button comfortably. I think the N64 controller was Nintendos best design. The Game Cube controller felt like a mutated N64 to me.
The three-button Genesis controller is probably the best controller in history. All of the buttons (even the Start button) are easily accessible, unlike even the NES controller. It has enough buttons to be adequate (at least, for games designed solely with Genesis in mind).
I feel that too many modern control schemes compensate for inadequacies on the developers' parts, especially with regard to camera control.
I feel that too many modern control schemes compensate for inadequacies on the developers' parts, especially with regard to camera control.
@RBinator -- Completely agree. I'm in favor of simple games with simple controls, complex games w/complex controls and any mixture of the above. Diversity is good, and I can play different games depending on my mood.
@Hcapt -- I picked up Oblivion's controls right away. So, again, I think this is a personal preference thing. Since I'm really familiar with RPG format for both JRPGs and Western RPGS, I think it helped me pick up Oblivion faster. Still, the only steep learning curve I experienced in Oblivion was the level-up system and creating a well-rounded strong character, but this didn't have to do with controls.
@Hcapt -- I picked up Oblivion's controls right away. So, again, I think this is a personal preference thing. Since I'm really familiar with RPG format for both JRPGs and Western RPGS, I think it helped me pick up Oblivion faster. Still, the only steep learning curve I experienced in Oblivion was the level-up system and creating a well-rounded strong character, but this didn't have to do with controls.
Thumbs are best for controls though. Once they added more finger buttons , is when things started to get complicated IMO.
Are you seriously confused by a 360 controller? Can you really not understand Gears of War's controls? How would any of today's games be played with two buttons and a dpad? Are you stupid or something? You don't like write like you are...
@ Drewcifer000 - Can you honestly tell me that the 360 controller isn't an intimidating piece of input overstuffed with more commands than it was intended to handle?
I fail to see how there can ever be new gamers if all the best titles are like Oblivion and Prototype. Heck, half the problem is that todays games can't be played with two buttons and a d-pad. Why aren't there be more incredibly easy to understand games like Super Mario Bros. and Touhou? Why must everything be a current gen game with current gen "gameplay"?
I really can't wait to see what happens when the New Super Mario Bros. Wii game comes out.
I fail to see how there can ever be new gamers if all the best titles are like Oblivion and Prototype. Heck, half the problem is that todays games can't be played with two buttons and a d-pad. Why aren't there be more incredibly easy to understand games like Super Mario Bros. and Touhou? Why must everything be a current gen game with current gen "gameplay"?
I really can't wait to see what happens when the New Super Mario Bros. Wii game comes out.
@ Dexter345
Exactly.
@ Megastryke
A couple last things before I head to Fallout 3 for the rest of the night.
This doesn't make any sense: "Does it take effort and skill to read a book or watch a movie, excluding the requirements that you are literate and are not easily distracted? Don't give this 'my experience shouldn't be compromised' nonsense. That's exactly the attitude why you guys don't think these control configurations are all that bad and why developers don't feel the need to change things up."
Books and movies are not the same as games in this regard. Those two mediums are passive in their interactivity. The most you do to control those experiences is open the book, flip pages, or push up or down channel on the remote. The rest of these experiences are just made up of you ingesting them and reflecting upon them. I want my games to be controlled by me in every way possible. I just honestly don't understand your stance on this topic. The things that you talk about are just not practical in any way, shape, or form in regards to the majority of modern games. They apply to games older than the Nintendo 64 era, sure. Other than that, it is just not possible to have certain games we have today without giving up some of our ability to fully interact with these games.
I really don't see how wanting my experience to not be compromised is "nonsense". I am sure--even just by reading some of these comments--that I am not alone on this. Developers and gamers feel no need to change things up because the majority feels there is nothing significantly wrong with game controls or controllers as they are right now. If you have a better, specific alternative, I would be happy to hear it; otherwise, to me, it just appears as if you are having trouble adjusting to new technology.
You appear to want the game to hold your hand instead of taking the time required to learn and master a set of complex controls. To me, the mastering and precise usage of these complex controls is what gaming is about. I feel like I shouldn't have to give that up because other people just can't wrap their heads around it. Like I said, there are other great alternatives to these types of complex games. I suggest that if you find these modern games with more than six buttons to be too extreme... simply don't play them..
Exactly.
@ Megastryke
A couple last things before I head to Fallout 3 for the rest of the night.
This doesn't make any sense: "Does it take effort and skill to read a book or watch a movie, excluding the requirements that you are literate and are not easily distracted? Don't give this 'my experience shouldn't be compromised' nonsense. That's exactly the attitude why you guys don't think these control configurations are all that bad and why developers don't feel the need to change things up."
Books and movies are not the same as games in this regard. Those two mediums are passive in their interactivity. The most you do to control those experiences is open the book, flip pages, or push up or down channel on the remote. The rest of these experiences are just made up of you ingesting them and reflecting upon them. I want my games to be controlled by me in every way possible. I just honestly don't understand your stance on this topic. The things that you talk about are just not practical in any way, shape, or form in regards to the majority of modern games. They apply to games older than the Nintendo 64 era, sure. Other than that, it is just not possible to have certain games we have today without giving up some of our ability to fully interact with these games.
I really don't see how wanting my experience to not be compromised is "nonsense". I am sure--even just by reading some of these comments--that I am not alone on this. Developers and gamers feel no need to change things up because the majority feels there is nothing significantly wrong with game controls or controllers as they are right now. If you have a better, specific alternative, I would be happy to hear it; otherwise, to me, it just appears as if you are having trouble adjusting to new technology.
You appear to want the game to hold your hand instead of taking the time required to learn and master a set of complex controls. To me, the mastering and precise usage of these complex controls is what gaming is about. I feel like I shouldn't have to give that up because other people just can't wrap their heads around it. Like I said, there are other great alternatives to these types of complex games. I suggest that if you find these modern games with more than six buttons to be too extreme... simply don't play them..
@Hcapt
Have you been asleep for the last few years? There are more "simple" games now than there have ever been. Some would even argue that there is a console dedicated entirely to casual gaming (Wii), but that is arguable. Still, gaming is WAY more accessible today than it has ever been - so much so that hardcore gamers are afraid complex, challenging games and even entire genres are going to disappear, especially when we read articles like this one.
Have you been asleep for the last few years? There are more "simple" games now than there have ever been. Some would even argue that there is a console dedicated entirely to casual gaming (Wii), but that is arguable. Still, gaming is WAY more accessible today than it has ever been - so much so that hardcore gamers are afraid complex, challenging games and even entire genres are going to disappear, especially when we read articles like this one.
@Hcapt -- As I mentioned earlier, I didn't start gaming on consoles until I was an adult. It took a little adjusting, but I picked it up pretty quickly.
Pretty much anyone using a console will have also used a PC at some point, and PCs can be far more complex in their input methodology. Simply put, consoles are way easier to use than PC and plenty of people will be familiar enough with computers to learn console controls relatively easily.
Pretty much anyone using a console will have also used a PC at some point, and PCs can be far more complex in their input methodology. Simply put, consoles are way easier to use than PC and plenty of people will be familiar enough with computers to learn console controls relatively easily.
@Steel Squirrel
Hmmmm. I read the words, but all I get out of them is, "It's all about me! If you can't handle the heat, don't play the games." What if I'm interested in Gears of War? What if I'm interested in a handful of other titles where the major hurdle is learning an unfamiliar control scheme that is needlessly complex and overwhelming? Why should I not be allowed to enjoy these games? You say, "Deal with it," but that would require me to brush aside a very real, very infuriating problem. If you've been learning to deal with it, fine. You want ten minute tutorials? Fine. Don't pretend like they aren't legitimate problems just because you have chosen to "deal with it."
Hmmmm. I read the words, but all I get out of them is, "It's all about me! If you can't handle the heat, don't play the games." What if I'm interested in Gears of War? What if I'm interested in a handful of other titles where the major hurdle is learning an unfamiliar control scheme that is needlessly complex and overwhelming? Why should I not be allowed to enjoy these games? You say, "Deal with it," but that would require me to brush aside a very real, very infuriating problem. If you've been learning to deal with it, fine. You want ten minute tutorials? Fine. Don't pretend like they aren't legitimate problems just because you have chosen to "deal with it."
Eh several issues here, your missing a few key control design basics, and have a few logical fallacies. Simple and Less don't necessarily equate, nor do less buttons equate to ease of play. And neither does ease of play mean better game.
Much of your post seems dedicated to the difficulty in learning from a control config image, except, no one does that any more(occasionally in demo's, but this is phasing out too). Nowadays these things are being replaced by tutorials, which provide a structured and simplistic environment specifically to teach the basics of the game. All games these days have more complex actions (perfectly valid reasons others have pointed to), for most games a bare skeleton are needed for play. For instance gears of war requires 3 buttons(triggers + A) and two thumbsticks for reasonable play. Once this is done, the rest comes naturally. It follows the time proven "easy to learn hard to master" spiel.
Also you seem to misunderstand the word "intuitive". In a controller sense what we're talking about here is how the controls relate to each other and the actions performed. For instance triggers are intuitive for shooting, why, because guns have triggers. Using the Right thumbstick and buttons for the most common actions is intuitive for a right handed person, because they use that hand more. Having all functions involving cover tied into 1 button, that's intuitive because cover is then all logically related to a single learned control(rather than learning 10 disparate controls).
So what's unintuitive? Well when the 1 button is used for disparate controls, for instance using the trigger to melee AND shoot is unintuitive, as the user must learn 2 sets of functions related to a single control (so even if play is easier this is unintuitive). Unless this is covered VERY well in a tutorial it can easily lead to frustration. When buttons are placed badly, for instance using the "X" button as a hold to crouch button precludes the use of the right thumbstick to move around while crouched. When one hand becomes "overutilised" While whichever hand you prefer should be used more, if the opposite is sitting like a dead fish on your controller while the other is moving like a crack addict, then the scheme should be shifted in such a way as to incorporate the other hand.
In this way the gears controls are very intuitive, no control precludes another, the right left weight is good, and can be switched for lefties. All shooting mechanics are tied into the two triggers and bumpers. Cover mechanics have been consolidated into a single button, and through the use of visual queues the context sensitive actions associated with it are simple to use. The Y button never needs to be pressed independently and shows up as a QTE, so your argument over it is facetious.
I'm not saying there aren't bad control schemes, but games like Gears of War are bad examples to pick on, considering how they are exemplars of fine control tuning.
Much of your post seems dedicated to the difficulty in learning from a control config image, except, no one does that any more(occasionally in demo's, but this is phasing out too). Nowadays these things are being replaced by tutorials, which provide a structured and simplistic environment specifically to teach the basics of the game. All games these days have more complex actions (perfectly valid reasons others have pointed to), for most games a bare skeleton are needed for play. For instance gears of war requires 3 buttons(triggers + A) and two thumbsticks for reasonable play. Once this is done, the rest comes naturally. It follows the time proven "easy to learn hard to master" spiel.
Also you seem to misunderstand the word "intuitive". In a controller sense what we're talking about here is how the controls relate to each other and the actions performed. For instance triggers are intuitive for shooting, why, because guns have triggers. Using the Right thumbstick and buttons for the most common actions is intuitive for a right handed person, because they use that hand more. Having all functions involving cover tied into 1 button, that's intuitive because cover is then all logically related to a single learned control(rather than learning 10 disparate controls).
So what's unintuitive? Well when the 1 button is used for disparate controls, for instance using the trigger to melee AND shoot is unintuitive, as the user must learn 2 sets of functions related to a single control (so even if play is easier this is unintuitive). Unless this is covered VERY well in a tutorial it can easily lead to frustration. When buttons are placed badly, for instance using the "X" button as a hold to crouch button precludes the use of the right thumbstick to move around while crouched. When one hand becomes "overutilised" While whichever hand you prefer should be used more, if the opposite is sitting like a dead fish on your controller while the other is moving like a crack addict, then the scheme should be shifted in such a way as to incorporate the other hand.
In this way the gears controls are very intuitive, no control precludes another, the right left weight is good, and can be switched for lefties. All shooting mechanics are tied into the two triggers and bumpers. Cover mechanics have been consolidated into a single button, and through the use of visual queues the context sensitive actions associated with it are simple to use. The Y button never needs to be pressed independently and shows up as a QTE, so your argument over it is facetious.
I'm not saying there aren't bad control schemes, but games like Gears of War are bad examples to pick on, considering how they are exemplars of fine control tuning.
Well I suggest you write a letter to Epic and ask them to make it easier for you. I'm sure they will think that everyone else should miss out on being able to control their character fully because you can't understand how to play the game the way they intended it to be played. I think you just aren't getting it that they have games for people like you. Gears of War isn't one of them.
It's not just about me, it is about the majority of gamers that do not feel this is even a problem. I had never even thought of this as a potential problem until you brought it up. Now that you have... it is obvious why I never found it to be a problem. It is absurd. I don't just "deal with it". I had no problem with it to begin with.
If you want to be angry or frustrated about something that you have the power to do something about, that's your problem. The majority (note how I use that word continuously) of gamers can, and do, learn these controls and prefer them to be the way they are. Just because you don't want to take the time to learn something or feel like something is too complicated doesn't mean that the rest of us should have to sink to your low standards.
If you were really as interested in a certain game as you claimed to be, it seems to me that the next logical step would be to get as familiarized as possible with the controls that the developers intended the game to work with. That is what the rest of us with "interest" in a game do.
It's not just about me, it is about the majority of gamers that do not feel this is even a problem. I had never even thought of this as a potential problem until you brought it up. Now that you have... it is obvious why I never found it to be a problem. It is absurd. I don't just "deal with it". I had no problem with it to begin with.
If you want to be angry or frustrated about something that you have the power to do something about, that's your problem. The majority (note how I use that word continuously) of gamers can, and do, learn these controls and prefer them to be the way they are. Just because you don't want to take the time to learn something or feel like something is too complicated doesn't mean that the rest of us should have to sink to your low standards.
If you were really as interested in a certain game as you claimed to be, it seems to me that the next logical step would be to get as familiarized as possible with the controls that the developers intended the game to work with. That is what the rest of us with "interest" in a game do.
@megaStryke
Again, I fail to see what's so hard about learning the controls of modern games. As others have said, most games have a tutorial where you learn the controls in 15 minutes - and that's being generous.
If you can't take the very small amount of time to go through a tutorial to learn the mechanics and controls of a game, I really don't know what to tell you.
However, I have a sneaking suspicion that you have already realized the faults of your argument, given they have been pointed multiple times, and instead of conceding on points would rather try to save face by making more and more ludicrous claims. I suggest you give up writing editorials at gaming sites and pursue a career in politics instead.
Again, I fail to see what's so hard about learning the controls of modern games. As others have said, most games have a tutorial where you learn the controls in 15 minutes - and that's being generous.
If you can't take the very small amount of time to go through a tutorial to learn the mechanics and controls of a game, I really don't know what to tell you.
However, I have a sneaking suspicion that you have already realized the faults of your argument, given they have been pointed multiple times, and instead of conceding on points would rather try to save face by making more and more ludicrous claims. I suggest you give up writing editorials at gaming sites and pursue a career in politics instead.
@chronomitch
Why do you continue to advise megaStyke to give up on the things he does? I just think your both on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to this issue.
Why do you continue to advise megaStyke to give up on the things he does? I just think your both on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to this issue.
@Lil Jorsche
The second time was a joke about the way politicians never apologize, even if they know they are wrong.
I don't think he should give up gaming. In fact, there are plenty "simple" games available for him to play, especially on the Wii. However, I find it ludicrous for him to complain about something that most gamers have no problem with. Just read Steel Squirrel's last post, and you'll get the idea.
The second time was a joke about the way politicians never apologize, even if they know they are wrong.
I don't think he should give up gaming. In fact, there are plenty "simple" games available for him to play, especially on the Wii. However, I find it ludicrous for him to complain about something that most gamers have no problem with. Just read Steel Squirrel's last post, and you'll get the idea.
@chronomitch
I feel like you're missing the point both of megastryke's article, and this month's theme in general. Maybe it wasn't made clear that this is part of a theme?
At anyrate, I think questioning the complexity of control can lead to new, and possibly better ways of playing the games we all enjoy.
Imagine that the lock-on mechanic never happened, or at least never caught on. Someone could have easily written an article about free-aim. As sacred/defensible/plain enjoyable as free-aim may be in that world, if no one questions it, who'd even think that there's a benefit to making attacks "stick" to a target of your (or the Ai's) choosing?
Sometimes, you have to bust up a system you like to find a better one, if that's what we're looking for.
I feel like you're missing the point both of megastryke's article, and this month's theme in general. Maybe it wasn't made clear that this is part of a theme?
At anyrate, I think questioning the complexity of control can lead to new, and possibly better ways of playing the games we all enjoy.
Imagine that the lock-on mechanic never happened, or at least never caught on. Someone could have easily written an article about free-aim. As sacred/defensible/plain enjoyable as free-aim may be in that world, if no one questions it, who'd even think that there's a benefit to making attacks "stick" to a target of your (or the Ai's) choosing?
Sometimes, you have to bust up a system you like to find a better one, if that's what we're looking for.
follow
