This "More Buttons" Trend Needs to STOP*
- Thread starter Foreign Jackass
- Start date
Oldschoolgamer
The physical form of blasphemy
TigersFan said:
Please explain to me how SOTC would have faired with less buttons. I really want to know how it would have worked out.
agent069 said:
Can you enjoy this 2 button + cross madness?
And what about that :
It's possible to design fun games that can be played using a d-pad and a couple of buttons, just like it's possible to paint a nice picture using only the colors red and orange. (Sunsets FTW.) Does that mean that we ought to eliminate all other colors from artists' pallettes to 'keep things simple'? And if we did, how do you think it would affect the range of pictures they'd be able to paint? Same thing here. Take away buttons, you take away design possibilities. Give them more buttons and they can always choose to use less. Take them away and they might not have the 'colors' necessary to bring their gameplay visions to life.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Tellaerin said:
POST OF THREAD! OP owned. No seriously this really is the post of the thread.
Larry Bird
Member
This analogy is retarded. Comparing the amount of buttons on a controller to the amount of colors in a picture? Come on, now. I know that probably felt really smart coming out, but it makes no ****ing sense.Tellaerin said:
:lolmckmas8808 said:
Oldschoolgamer
The physical form of blasphemy
Larry Bird said:
The analogy made perfect sense...
It makes perfect sense. You can paint a work of art in 5 or 50 colors, it's up to the artist to decide how to use them well. You can make a brilliant game with 2-buttons or 20. A game like Battlefield2 uses a good amount of keys effectively. Not all games need that. I can play some games with just the mouse. It all varies. But think about this. For one, 3D games require more inputs b/c there are more dimensions to control. There are a lot of games that could not be done with 2 buttons. Some games absolutely mandate all 8. It's just like painting a picture. The Mona Lisa wouldn't have worked in monochrome. Some still life doesn't work in color. It's all about having the right tool for the job, and taking away buttons doesn't ensure that. The analogy makes sense to me. PEACE.Larry Bird said:
Great post. You're right -- many activities require a learned set of physical skills. Two thoughts, though:Tellaerin said:There are many recreational activities out there that require people to learn associated physical skills in order to enjoy. Whether it's dancing, playing an instrument, or sports, physical skills are a bar to entry, and there's a limit to how far you can lower that bar without changing the essence of the activity itself.
Videogames (that is to say, the ones with an action component, rather than exclusively menu-driven ones) are in the same class. In order to get the most out of them, you have to have decent reflexes, and you have to take the time to memorize the positions of a handful of buttons (and a couple of thumbsticks) to the point where you can use them without thinking. Some people can do this easily. Others can't. Just like some people have an easy time learning to play the guitar or keyboards, while others struggle forever without getting anywhere.
To tell you the honest truth, I don't think videogames are ever going to be a 'mainstream' activity in the sense that movies or television are. Most games require dexterity and quick reflexes from the player, and some people just lack those things. They're all thumbs when it comes to the controller. And that's OK - some people can't hit a hole in one or even play Chopsticks on the piano, either. But nobody's seriously going to suggest changing the rules of golf or simplifying pianos because some people don't have the abilities needed to really enjoy those activities. That's what the OP seems to be suggesting - that changes should be made to controllers as a whole to accomodate the people who can't handle them as they are. I couldn't disagree with that more.
You made a good point about companies developing titles for two tiers of players - the hardcore gamers and the casual, non-gaming crowd. (Though I don't exactly care for the way you painted dedicated gamers as pathetic loners in dark rooms - I think that's a wee bit unfair.) While those casual-oriented titles might not appeal to me, and might not capture what I consider to be the spirit of videogames, if there are people who enjoy them, hey, more power to 'em. I just don't want to see development shift away from 'games for gamers', leaving those of us who do (and can) enjoy them out in the cold.
1) There is a difference between rewarding a high level of physical skill with success and requiring a high level of physical skill as a barrier to entry. For example, it requires some (but not much) coordination to kick a soccer ball around or pluck out a simple tune on a piano. As you get better, you obviously can do much more...but barring a complete inability to perform, you can imagine that almost anyone could kick a ball around a field with their kid or learn a song or two that they can play with a few fingers.
Some games allow for different levels of skill with the controller. Katamari Damacy doesn't have complicated controls to begin with, but it's possible to beat the game with simple turns and rolls, and to beat it with a higher score by using some of the special techniques (charge rolling, etc.). Guitar Hero is another example -- the different difficulty levels simplify controls by restricting the number of buttons and the amount of strumming. On the other hand, if you NEED four triggers and two sticks to control a game at a minimum, you have to master those skills, or you can't play the game.
2) Thinking about a control interface gets in the way of performing an activity. The goal is to perform a task -- in this case, actions in a game world -- and the control interface is only a means to that end, not the end itself. Consider a new driver unfamiliar with a car -- if they are struggling with the stick shift and trying to figure out how to operate the wipers, they are not paying attention to the driving environment and run the risk of crashing. Obviously playing a game is a less serious pursuit, but enjoyment comes from overcoming obstacles in the game world which often require attention and thought. If you're wasting mental energy trying to remember what button does what action, it's likely you will not do well at the game, and possibly not enjoy it as a result.
Again, I'm not claiming that all games should be simple, but I do hope that control systems are only as complicated as they need to be, and take things like varying levels of skill and experience into account.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Non-gamers don't have a problem with buttons, they only really find it difficult to use analog sticks in a 3D space.
The Wii attempts to solve this problem but I still think that more complex games like Zelda, Mario, ect... will still be just as challenging because the controlls don't mimic the action on screen.
Wii Sports however is simple to understand for non-gamers because everyone knows how to swing a tennis racket, golf club, baseball bat ect...
So I fear Nintendo's strategy for broadening their audience will be simplistic games/party games, which is why I am staying away from the Wii until I know Nintendo will be providing quality innovative experiences (which I am sure they will, but who knows how consistent the pipeline will be).
The Wii attempts to solve this problem but I still think that more complex games like Zelda, Mario, ect... will still be just as challenging because the controlls don't mimic the action on screen.
Wii Sports however is simple to understand for non-gamers because everyone knows how to swing a tennis racket, golf club, baseball bat ect...
So I fear Nintendo's strategy for broadening their audience will be simplistic games/party games, which is why I am staying away from the Wii until I know Nintendo will be providing quality innovative experiences (which I am sure they will, but who knows how consistent the pipeline will be).
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
How hard is it really to play Rockstar's Table Tennis on the Xbox 360?
The analogy made perfect sense, the only thing retarded here is the post that I am quoting and the OP's post.Larry Bird said:
If you can't handle the current amount of buttons on a standard controller then you should just stop gaming. Just because it's complex for you doesn't mean that other people can't handle it.
anotherworld
Banned
Foreign Jackass said:
how the hell do you use a keyboard with over 50 keys:lol
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
anotherworld said:
He doesn't, he gets his mommy to type everything out for him.
Tellaerin, there's only one problem I have with your analogy; while the painter can choose between fewer and greater numbers of colours, the observer of the painting does not need to know much about the colours to connect with or to appreciate the painting. The analogous gamer, however, does need to know how the designer used the buttons at his or her disposal.
I feel a more appropriate analogue for the gamer would be an art student who tries to understand the artist's reasons for using the colours; a renaissance-era student may have difficulty with post-modern technique and vice versa.
Edit: Personally, I believe that the Xbox 360 controller provides exactly the right number of buttons and sticks for the majority of the games that I want to play. The face buttons and D-pad for fighters and RPGs; switch D-pad with left-analogue for platformers; switch face buttons for shoulder buttons and right-analogue stick for first or third-person shooters. However, I'm not a fan of games that utilise ALL of the buttons on the controller, simply because I don't want to move my hands from the "main" interface configuration for a particular game that I'm playing.
I feel a more appropriate analogue for the gamer would be an art student who tries to understand the artist's reasons for using the colours; a renaissance-era student may have difficulty with post-modern technique and vice versa.
Edit: Personally, I believe that the Xbox 360 controller provides exactly the right number of buttons and sticks for the majority of the games that I want to play. The face buttons and D-pad for fighters and RPGs; switch D-pad with left-analogue for platformers; switch face buttons for shoulder buttons and right-analogue stick for first or third-person shooters. However, I'm not a fan of games that utilise ALL of the buttons on the controller, simply because I don't want to move my hands from the "main" interface configuration for a particular game that I'm playing.
Foreign Jackass
Member
I just can't believe how many retarded replies this topic got. Everyone is insulting me for saying that I believe there's too many buttons. What the hell is your problem? HAHA HOW CAN YOU TYPE ON THE KEYBOARD HAR HAR HAR. Isn't there some way to state your opinions without resorting to lame insults and implying that I should stop playing games? I mean that's not too strong an argument.
And for the Shadow of the Colossus comment, I can't believe how simple this game is and how half of the buttons really could be implemented in another way. Anyone who cannot see this simply has his eyes closed to the matter. Basically, you need the R1 trigger to grip, the square button to hit, the triangle button to jump, one stick for the player and one for the camera (this is just because the camera is badly designed in the game) and one button to switch weapons. The rest is pretty much useless except for the rolling move. Add a button. The rest of the buttons are used just because they are there, with the stupid camera stuff basically made to "admire" the landscape. And what about that stupid button that just makes your character look to the left and right while bringing the camera close to the back of his head? Is that really useful? Does it need a button? Couldn't it be done another way?
I swear, this thread is full of bad faith.
And for the Shadow of the Colossus comment, I can't believe how simple this game is and how half of the buttons really could be implemented in another way. Anyone who cannot see this simply has his eyes closed to the matter. Basically, you need the R1 trigger to grip, the square button to hit, the triangle button to jump, one stick for the player and one for the camera (this is just because the camera is badly designed in the game) and one button to switch weapons. The rest is pretty much useless except for the rolling move. Add a button. The rest of the buttons are used just because they are there, with the stupid camera stuff basically made to "admire" the landscape. And what about that stupid button that just makes your character look to the left and right while bringing the camera close to the back of his head? Is that really useful? Does it need a button? Couldn't it be done another way?
I swear, this thread is full of bad faith.
Wolves Evolve
Member
Silly topic. Why not a 'worst button ever' thread? Z-trigger for GCN, black/white for Xbox and the square on the PSP need to be dressed down.
Tellaerin said:There are many recreational activities out there that require people to learn associated physical skills in order to enjoy. Whether it's dancing, playing an instrument, or sports, physical skills are a bar to entry, and there's a limit to how far you can lower that bar without changing the essence of the activity itself.
Videogames (that is to say, the ones with an action component, rather than exclusively menu-driven ones) are in the same class. In order to get the most out of them, you have to have decent reflexes, and you have to take the time to memorize the positions of a handful of buttons (and a couple of thumbsticks) to the point where you can use them without thinking. Some people can do this easily. Others can't. Just like some people have an easy time learning to play the guitar or keyboards, while others struggle forever without getting anywhere.
To tell you the honest truth, I don't think videogames are ever going to be a 'mainstream' activity in the sense that movies or television are. Most games require dexterity and quick reflexes from the player, and some people just lack those things. They're all thumbs when it comes to the controller. And that's OK - some people can't hit a hole in one or even play Chopsticks on the piano, either. But nobody's seriously going to suggest changing the rules of golf or simplifying pianos because some people don't have the abilities needed to really enjoy those activities. That's what the OP seems to be suggesting - that changes should be made to controllers as a whole to accomodate the people who can't handle them as they are. I couldn't disagree with that more.
You made a good point about companies developing titles for two tiers of players - the hardcore gamers and the casual, non-gaming crowd. (Though I don't exactly care for the way you painted dedicated gamers as pathetic loners in dark rooms - I think that's a wee bit unfair.
Post of the thread right here. This is exactly how I feel.
Your "mom" may not EVER want to play video games no matter how simple you make it or how much you strip a controller down. It's all about the software. Personally I like my controller to have a lot of buttons... do I want every game to use every button? Of course not, but at least it opens up plenty of options for game devs to make a game as complex or as simple as they desire.
Even the OP admitted to liking and playing PC games. Well the keyboard has 50+ buttons and, like he said, he only uses a select few. But it's still on the SAME 50+ button keyboard. So again, it's down to developers. Maybe some will only use 5 buttons on a keyboard / controller, maybe some will use all. If there are games too complicated for you to play due to controls, button use, etc, why not just try out another game, maybe a less complex game on said system, instead of trying to change the hardware or imply that something is wrong with the controller due to your lack of game play skill?
Tellaerin said:There are many recreational activities out there that require people to learn associated physical skills in order to enjoy. Whether it's dancing, playing an instrument, or sports, physical skills are a bar to entry, and there's a limit to how far you can lower that bar without changing the essence of the activity itself.
Videogames (that is to say, the ones with an action component, rather than exclusively menu-driven ones) are in the same class. In order to get the most out of them, you have to have decent reflexes, and you have to take the time to memorize the positions of a handful of buttons (and a couple of thumbsticks) to the point where you can use them without thinking. Some people can do this easily. Others can't. Just like some people have an easy time learning to play the guitar or keyboards, while others struggle forever without getting anywhere.
To tell you the honest truth, I don't think videogames are ever going to be a 'mainstream' activity in the sense that movies or television are. Most games require dexterity and quick reflexes from the player, and some people just lack those things. They're all thumbs when it comes to the controller. And that's OK - some people can't hit a hole in one or even play Chopsticks on the piano, either. But nobody's seriously going to suggest changing the rules of golf or simplifying pianos because some people don't have the abilities needed to really enjoy those activities. That's what the OP seems to be suggesting - that changes should be made to controllers as a whole to accomodate the people who can't handle them as they are. I couldn't disagree with that more.
You made a good point about companies developing titles for two tiers of players - the hardcore gamers and the casual, non-gaming crowd. (Though I don't exactly care for the way you painted dedicated gamers as pathetic loners in dark rooms - I think that's a wee bit unfair.
Well said.