This topic is locked from further discussion.
I stopped taking them seriously when they said "get rid of the Dpad."
Seriously, Dpad>>>>>>>>analogue control
BuryMe
I would not say D-pad is better than analouge, as it would make shooters (especially sniping) difficult.
but I did not take him seriously after that poit. The D-pad is not used loads with weapon selection and things like that.
I believe 4 face buttons is enough, but Nintendo had a good idea with the GC controller in relocating the button positions. Although, the relocating needs some tweaking.
The D-pad has a use still. It can operate an alternate item, like the cell phone in GTA4, while doing other actions. Although, it should be more free to use, like placing it in the middle of the N64 controller, where both hands can freely operate and provide the real world limits involved in talking on the cellphone and driving a car. It can be done, but your attention is divided, as are your controls.
The Wiimote did not drop the Select and Start buttons but replaced them with the Plus and Minus buttons. The 1 and 2 buttons are positioned for the horizontal Wiimote alignment, not the vertical one.
My idea of the ideal controller is a two piece controller where your hands are not stuck together, plus the 2 pieces are interchangeable with different button and sensor configurations with would be more ideal for certain games.
Why is everyone obsessed with simplistic things, so much for the days when games were meant to challenge your mind, ability to multiask or show blatant skill.
Wtf is happening. fewer buttons? Thank god the PC platform isnt effected by this ****
Meu2k7
games can challenge your mind without making the interface the challenge. the Challenge should come from the elements of the game. even on the PC we now have a mouse and ppl and use programs much easier than when it was all a series of keyboard shortcuts. but have the programs themselves become more primitive? no, they're more advanced but easier to use generally.
1. Reduce the number of face and shoulder buttonsDevelopers might panic initially, having grown accustomed to mapping simple functions (such as "reload" or "use") to a dedicated button. Then again, game developers are nothing if not resourceful, and the button limitations would surely lead to some ingenious solutions. For inspiration, one need only play the excellent (but sickeningly cute) Kirby's Adventure released in 1993 on the NES to realize how many unique actions are attainable using only a single directional pad and two face buttons.Gamepro
I strongly disagree with this point. Reducing the number of buttons might seem a good idea for some games. But for other games, let's take Halo 3 as an example for this, when you are in a fierce firefight and its do-or-die, then I don't want to have to "press down on d-pad" + "press A button" to switch guns or reload, I want to be able to do so as fast as possible, without having to remember all the combinations for each function.
2. Ditch the Start and Select buttons in favor of a single "menu" buttonGamepro
As for the Start and Select buttons, they come in handy in some games, again I'll use Halo 3 as an example, where if you want to see the scoreboard you only have to hold down the Select button for it to show.
3. Get rid of the d-pad once and for allFurthermore, keep in mind that third-party d-pads could be sold separately for the demanding gamer, much like steering wheels, and... you guessed it -- joysticks.Gamepro
Again the D-Pad is very useful for some games like fighting games. And the idea of selling a add-on is ever worse, it seems like they just want to make even more money.
4. Use motion controls.Gamepro
My personnal opinion is that, again, it goes well with some games, but for others it would be a horrible idea.
5. Add an attachment peripheralGamepro
Doesn't the Wii and the Xbox 360 controllers already have this? (Sorry for the PS3 owners but I do not know if you have one)
[QUOTE="Relys"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="haris12121212"]So basicly we return to the NES era controller with a Analog Stick instead of the D-Pad and motion sensing? Yeah sure why not. I would love to play a fps game where A button is shoot B is jump and the rest well dunno...mjarantilla
Do you really need that many buttons? Honestly now, developers need to realize the benefits of contextual inputs.
Contextual inputs = "button masher"/"adventure game".
Tell that to Gears of War.
what??
i think you meant GOD of war.
gears is a shooter
I'm not a PC gamer, but I have to say that this controller overrides the function of a mouse and keyboard. What about hotkeys? And quite a good deal of motion sensing gaming is either not as good as stuff on a regular controller or gimmicky. Reducing the amount of buttons helps with ease-of-use for newer gamers, but I have to say this: we were here first and we're going to open our pocketbooks more than the newbies will. So, Gamepro's ideal controller with a simple menu button is a failure. Epecially with Xbox 360's proven formula with the Xbox Guide button and a start button. Maybe the back button is somewhat useless, but I've seen it used well. If the wiimote is so darn good, then why does pretty much everyone prefer the Gamecube controller for SSBB? Or why do they even need the "classic controller"?
The wiimote has served as a nice gimmick for Nintendo and it has attracted a lot of new gamers, but it's far from ideal and is definitely not the future of gaming.
I'm not a PC gamer, but I have to say that this controller overrides the function of a mouse and keyboard. What about hotkeys? And quite a good deal of motion sensing gaming is either not as good as stuff on a regular controller or gimmicky. Reducing the amount of buttons helps with ease-of-use for newer gamers, but I have to say this: we were here first and we're going to open our pocketbooks more than the newbies will. So, Gamepro's ideal controller with a simple menu button is a failure. Epecially with Xbox 360's proven formula with the Xbox Guide button and a start button. Maybe the back button is somewhat useless, but I've seen it used well. If the wiimote is so darn good, then why does pretty much everyone prefer the Gamecube controller for SSBB? Or why do they even need the "classic controller"?
The wiimote has served as a nice gimmick for Nintendo and it has attracted a lot of new gamers, but it's far from ideal and is definitely not the future of gaming.
darthzew
and why they dont use it for galaxy and metroid ?
is it so bad too use the best way too control ?
[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Not really. Nintendo didn't ditch select and start.. they just relabeled them "-" and "+".2. Ditch the Start and Select buttons in favor of a single "menu" button(One universal "menu" button? Yup, that's the Wiimote.)
ThePlothole
You know, I never quite understood the purpose of the Select button.....
Start and select are both vestiges from the Acade. You would "select" your character.. or whatever.. and then "start" the game.In most NES games the Selct Button was used alot the Select button was used to select between choices like in the menu for Super Mario Bros. you couldn't use a D-Pad you had to use the Select Button to choose between Single Player and Two Players. Also in most NES games it was used for that I got confused when I recently started playing NES again 2 years ago.[QUOTE="Relys"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="haris12121212"]So basicly we return to the NES era controller with a Analog Stick instead of the D-Pad and motion sensing? Yeah sure why not. I would love to play a fps game where A button is shoot B is jump and the rest well dunno...gamer620
Do you really need that many buttons? Honestly now, developers need to realize the benefits of contextual inputs.
Contextual inputs = "button masher"/"adventure game".
not necessarily. Using the Wiimote as an example, instead of pressing a button to open a door, pushing/pulling on the remote can open and close doors. Just look at Metroid Prime 3 for an example.
quick edit, also check out Penumbra on the PC. everything is mouse movement based. manipulating the mouse to act as a hand.
That would fall under the "adventure game" catigory. Which works fine actually.
[QUOTE="darthzew"]I'm not a PC gamer, but I have to say that this controller overrides the function of a mouse and keyboard. What about hotkeys? And quite a good deal of motion sensing gaming is either not as good as stuff on a regular controller or gimmicky. Reducing the amount of buttons helps with ease-of-use for newer gamers, but I have to say this: we were here first and we're going to open our pocketbooks more than the newbies will. So, Gamepro's ideal controller with a simple menu button is a failure. Epecially with Xbox 360's proven formula with the Xbox Guide button and a start button. Maybe the back button is somewhat useless, but I've seen it used well. If the wiimote is so darn good, then why does pretty much everyone prefer the Gamecube controller for SSBB? Or why do they even need the "classic controller"?
The wiimote has served as a nice gimmick for Nintendo and it has attracted a lot of new gamers, but it's far from ideal and is definitely not the future of gaming.
fishfake
and why they dont use it for galaxy and metroid ?
is it so bad too use the best way too control ?
I'm not understanding what you're saying, but I'll try. Metroid and Galaxy are both good examples of Wiimote uses, but let me offer my assuranes that Metroid would be better on a regular controller. That's opinion and up for debate, but there's very little that's actually better than a mouse and keyboard (as a non-PC gamer I confess to that). I think that SSBB proves that the classical controller scheme is still better. Sure, you can make new stuff with the Wii, but it's not very good for doing the older things we all know and love.
i dont think there exist a perfect controller for each genre
jump and runs on pc ?
mmorpg with gamepad ?
fighters with wii mode ?
nothing is perfect
fishfake
FINALLY someone gets it. :D The various different types of game genres means no one style of controller can be "perfect". Some genres can be done on all 3 to decent standards (FPS, but really you do need either plenty of keys or buttons for all the options), but some just won't, and that's fine. Wiimote to me would be perfect for first person games that involve manipulating objects, such as swords or whips, or operating things in game, but I personally couldn't stand thrashing my hands at the screen for Zelda TP, rather than simply press an attack button. Can't get rid of D-pads, either. I'm not a fighter fan at all, but LOTS of people are, and none of Wiimote, Dual Analog or Mouse/Kb can compete with a good D-pad on this one. Arcade style sticks are obviously best for lots here, but they wouldn't do shooters or RTS games at all. Dual Analog is great for moving and operating in 3 dimensions, and for me it's the best overall because it does the most things to a reasonable standard, but there are other control types that do specific things better.
Perhaps the article should have went with "Perfect controller...for "insert specific game genre"
1. Reduce the number of face and shoulder buttons
Absolutely STUPID idea. Many games already get dumbed down due to controller limitations, and this would make it even worse. There is a balance to be struck, yes, but current controllers are about right on that balance.
2. Ditch the Start and Select buttons in favor of a single "menu" button
Maybe, but ultimately, this is just 1 restated with specifics, and has the exact same issue. Less controls means less varied control.
3. Get rid of the d-pad once and for all
Another stupid a *bleep* idea. Not only are they an extra control that many games make heavy use of, even when they are an option there are many generas and specific games that control better with the d-pad.
4. Use motion controls
When this gen started, I was all hot for motion... I'm not so much anymore. The accuracy just isn't there yet and it so far been a very large mixed bag of implementations, so far, sadly, favoring the bad. It's a nice option, but we still are too soon for this acting as a replacement for traditional controls
5. Add an attachment peripheral
Yeah, that way the company can milk us even more, and I have yet more things to lose. Attachments on Wii are somewhat nice, but for all their benefit they are an equal hassel, not to mention extra expense.
You all know this article has nothing to do with any of you? This thread is full of people who are used to and grew up with gamepads and experienced the evolution of them from the atari to today. of course you think nothing is wrong with today's gamepads.
But give a gamepad to someone who did not grow up playing video games and it's seriously intimidating.
If we can get to a point where our games are just as compelling as ever but with a simpler interface, what's to lose? I'll tell you what's to gain, a more respected hobby, that's what.
The modern gamepad is also pretty intimidating to some people who did grow up with them. I know those who stopped playing after the SNES days just because things were getting too complicated when the Playstation and N64 came around.But give a gamepad to someone who did not grow up playing video games and it's seriously intimidating.
goblaa
You all know this article has nothing to do with any of you? This thread is full of people who are used to and grew up with gamepads and experienced the evolution of them from the atari to today. of course you think nothing is wrong with today's gamepads.
But give a gamepad to someone who did not grow up playing video games and it's seriously intimidating.
If we can get to a point where our games are just as compelling as ever but with a simpler interface, what's to lose? I'll tell you what's to gain, a more respected hobby, that's what.
goblaa
If I have to sacrifice all the complexity to get it 'respected', I'll gladly keep it in the disrespected category.
Making something less intimidating does not automatically mean it is better.
[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Relys"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="haris12121212"]So basicly we return to the NES era controller with a Analog Stick instead of the D-Pad and motion sensing? Yeah sure why not. I would love to play a fps game where A button is shoot B is jump and the rest well dunno...Sgt_Grig
Do you really need that many buttons? Honestly now, developers need to realize the benefits of contextual inputs.
Contextual inputs = "button masher"/"adventure game".
Tell that to Gears of War.
what??
i think you meant GOD of war.
gears is a shooter
As in, Relys said contextual inputs was for button mashers and adventure games. Mja responded by stating the contextual inputs in GeoW.
[QUOTE="goblaa"]You all know this article has nothing to do with any of you? This thread is full of people who are used to and grew up with gamepads and experienced the evolution of them from the atari to today. of course you think nothing is wrong with today's gamepads.
But give a gamepad to someone who did not grow up playing video games and it's seriously intimidating.
If we can get to a point where our games are just as compelling as ever but with a simpler interface, what's to lose? I'll tell you what's to gain, a more respected hobby, that's what.
DerekLoffin
If I have to sacrifice all the complexity to get it 'respected', I'll gladly keep it in the disrespected category.
Making something less intimidating does not automatically mean it is better.
That's funny, I was under the impression that it was gameplay that added complexity and depth, not the controller.
[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Relys"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="haris12121212"]So basicly we return to the NES era controller with a Analog Stick instead of the D-Pad and motion sensing? Yeah sure why not. I would love to play a fps game where A button is shoot B is jump and the rest well dunno...Sgt_Grig
Do you really need that many buttons? Honestly now, developers need to realize the benefits of contextual inputs.
Contextual inputs = "button masher"/"adventure game".
Tell that to Gears of War.
what??
i think you meant GOD of war.
gears is a shooter
No, I mean GEARS of War. CliffyB made a huge deal out of designing Gears of War around contextual inputs (i.e. the multiple uses of the "A" button).
[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]3. Get rid of the d-pad once and for all(Ok, not the Wiimote, but it's used so rarely compared to the D-pad on the other controllers that it might as well be gone.)
SSCyborg
FAIL!
Seriously, who would think that?
I said it's used rarely on the Wiimote. I'm not commenting on its use on the 360 and PS3, but on the Wiimote, I've hardly used the D-pad at all, unless it was for a game like Super Paper Mario which uses it in the horizontal configuration.
For FPS I prefer a mouse nunchuck type combo like the FX for ps3. But I want the mouse to be native mouse, no analogue.
For the rest of my games I like the 360 controller. Well some race car games the steering wheel is a must have.
I like the Wii, but it doesn't work the best for fps. If they improve the sensativity, it will be better than a mouse.
[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="goblaa"]You all know this article has nothing to do with any of you? This thread is full of people who are used to and grew up with gamepads and experienced the evolution of them from the atari to today. of course you think nothing is wrong with today's gamepads.
But give a gamepad to someone who did not grow up playing video games and it's seriously intimidating.
If we can get to a point where our games are just as compelling as ever but with a simpler interface, what's to lose? I'll tell you what's to gain, a more respected hobby, that's what.
goblaa
If I have to sacrifice all the complexity to get it 'respected', I'll gladly keep it in the disrespected category.
Making something less intimidating does not automatically mean it is better.
That's funny, I was under the impression that it was gameplay that added complexity and depth, not the controller.
The two kind need each other. I don't care how awesome a game developer you are, if I gave you a controller with nothing but 1 button, you can't make a complex game with it. A game's complexity is essentially capped off by the controller. The simplier you make the controller, the lower the complexity of the game goes.
[QUOTE="goblaa"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="goblaa"]You all know this article has nothing to do with any of you? This thread is full of people who are used to and grew up with gamepads and experienced the evolution of them from the atari to today. of course you think nothing is wrong with today's gamepads.
But give a gamepad to someone who did not grow up playing video games and it's seriously intimidating.
If we can get to a point where our games are just as compelling as ever but with a simpler interface, what's to lose? I'll tell you what's to gain, a more respected hobby, that's what.
DerekLoffin
If I have to sacrifice all the complexity to get it 'respected', I'll gladly keep it in the disrespected category.
Making something less intimidating does not automatically mean it is better.
That's funny, I was under the impression that it was gameplay that added complexity and depth, not the controller.
The two kind need each other. I don't care how awesome a game developer you are, if I gave you a controller with nothing but 1 button, you can't make a complex game with it. A game's complexity is essentially capped off by the controller. The simplier you make the controller, the lower the complexity of the game goes.
There are thresholds to everything. A control system that uses an entire keyboard is TOO complex. A single button controller is TOO simple. There is a happy medium, but the current controller configuration, with fourteen digital buttons (four face buttons, two shoulder buttons, four D-pad buttons, two clickable analog sticks, start, select), two triggers, and two analog sticks is beyond that "happy medium."
And define "complexity." First-person shooters on the PC can be complex, but the controls are also always very simple. If you paired a Wii nunchuck with a standard gaming mouse, you'd have more than enough buttons and controls to play them.
There are thresholds to everything. A control system that uses an entire keyboard is TOO complex. A single button controller is TOO simple. There is a happy medium, but the current controller configuration, with fourteen digital buttons (four face buttons, two shoulder buttons, four D-pad buttons, two clickable analog sticks, start, select), two triggers, and two analog sticks is beyond that "happy medium."And define "complexity." First-person shooters on the PC can be complex, but the controls are also always very simple. If you paired a Wii nunchuck with a standard gaming mouse, you'd have more than enough buttons and controls to play them.
mjarantilla
That's pretty weaksauce. If you think the 360 and PS3 controllers are too complex you just need more practice.
[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]There are thresholds to everything. A control system that uses an entire keyboard is TOO complex. A single button controller is TOO simple. There is a happy medium, but the current controller configuration, with fourteen digital buttons (four face buttons, two shoulder buttons, four D-pad buttons, two clickable analog sticks, start, select), two triggers, and two analog sticks is beyond that "happy medium."And define "complexity." First-person shooters on the PC can be complex, but the controls are also always very simple. If you paired a Wii nunchuck with a standard gaming mouse, you'd have more than enough buttons and controls to play them.
Bgrngod
That's pretty weaksauce. If you think the 360 and PS3 controllers are too complex you just need more practice.
A good user interface shouldn't need ANY practice before someone can start using it competently. Sure, practice can make you better at using it, but that's all.
In CliffyB's own words, "Expecting a person to figure out how to use a [traditional] controller is like saying, 'Hey, you need to learn Spanish before you can enjoy this game.'"
This isn't a problem with PCs, because with PCs, in most tasks the keyboard is very straightforward. You hit a button with a letter painted on it, and the computer prints out the letter of the button you hit. But with consoles, and with most PC games, extra layers of abstraction are added so that nothing is straightforward anymore. The simpler those layers of abstraction can be, the more accessible the game becomes and the more enjoyable it becomes to everyone.
Thats not ideal at ALL. I don't want games to become even more simplified than they already are. Removing buttons is like removing potential. It could be considered one of the plethora of reasons people consider the Wii kiddy. I thought we were trying to excape the "Toy" stereotype, any less buttons and people wont be able to tell the difference between those Wal-mart learning consoles that are found in the toy section.
If it were meant to be any simpler, the gamepad would be like most casual arcade games with a single joystick followed by a couple of brightly colored buttons. With that said, there is a reason arcade games have just a few buttons. Your not willing to spend 1 hour on a learning curve at an arcade, thats ideal for a gamepad, were your at home relaxing for hours on in.
Tomb Raider PS1 used all 15 buttons on the PS1 pad, now it remains the highest rated, and best Tomb Raider.
A good user interface shouldn't need ANY practice before someone can start using it competently. Sure, practice can make you better at using it, but that's all.
In CliffyB's own words, "Expecting a person to figure out how to use a traditional controller is like saying, 'Hey, you need to learn Spanish before you can enjoy this game.'"
This isn't a problem with PCs, because with PCs, in most tasks the keyboard is very straightforward. You hit a button with a letter painted on it, and the computer prints out the letter of the button you hit. But with consoles, and with most PC games, extra layers of abstraction are added so that nothing is straightforward anymore. The simpler those layers of abstraction can be, the more accessible the game becomes and the more enjoyable it becomes to everyone.
mjarantilla
Controllers aren't a UI. They are an input device, as well as an output device, depending on the controller. There is a huge difference. If you want a "good UI" they would need to ship unique controllers for each game. The controllers now are used for all of the thousands of games that are released on consoles.
The 360/PS3 controllers are reaching the pinnacle of perfection as far as game pad controllers go. They have just the right number of intuitive buttons. It takes all of maybe 30 minutes to figure out what most games do just by tapping keys, or *GASP* going through a simple tutorial that lays it all out. It's called a learning curve. Every game out there, regardless of control method, has a learning curve. There is no way around it. Changing the controller around by removing buttons could just as easily extend the time of the learning curve as well as shorten it.
That Cliffy B. quote you provided, is quite honestly, retarded. Learning spanish takes a long time. Figuring out how to use a controller can be done in one sitting.
I thought we were trying to excape the "Toy" stereotype, any less buttons and people wont be able to tell the difference between those Wal-mart learning consoles that are found in the toy section.
Pro_wrestler
you won't be escaping the "nerd" stereotype, though, which is more desirable.
Yeah, it is a fantastic controller. My only gripe with it is that it isn't the most comfortable controller out there..... especially with long sessions.MoldOnHold
Love you sig, He just gets right back up XD
What do you think they pay the guy who does the photoshop graphics at Gamepro? :lol:
Such an innovative and creative design! :P
[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]
A good user interface shouldn't need ANY practice before someone can start using it competently. Sure, practice can make you better at using it, but that's all.
In CliffyB's own words, "Expecting a person to figure out how to use a traditional controller is like saying, 'Hey, you need to learn Spanish before you can enjoy this game.'"
This isn't a problem with PCs, because with PCs, in most tasks the keyboard is very straightforward. You hit a button with a letter painted on it, and the computer prints out the letter of the button you hit. But with consoles, and with most PC games, extra layers of abstraction are added so that nothing is straightforward anymore. The simpler those layers of abstraction can be, the more accessible the game becomes and the more enjoyable it becomes to everyone.
Bgrngod
Controllers aren't a UI. They are an input device, as well as an output device, depending on the controller. There is a huge difference. If you want a "good UI" they would need to ship unique controllers for each game. The controllers now are used for all of the thousands of games that are released on consoles.
The 360/PS3 controllers are reaching the pinnacle of perfection as far as game pad controllers go. They have just the right number of intuitive buttons. It takes all of maybe 30 minutes to figure out what most games do just by tapping keys, or *GASP* going through a simple tutorial that lays it all out. It's called a learning curve. Every game out there, regardless of control method, has a learning curve. There is no way around it. Changing the controller around by removing buttons could just as easily extend the time of the learning curve as well as shorten it.
That Cliffy B. quote you provided, is quite honestly, retarded. Learning spanish takes a long time. Figuring out how to use a controller can be done in one sitting.
Input devices ARE UIs. And you don't need unique controllers for each game, just a generic enough controller that can be utilized in many different methods. That's what the Wiimote is (or what it was supposed to be, if they ever figure out gesture control). For human beings, gestures are how we interact with the world, not buttons, and it's a lot easier to learn gestures than it is to learn button configurations.
And the Dual Shock-sty1e controllers are FAR from reaching the "pinnacle of perfection." As I said, a good UI shouldn't require any kind of tutorial or introduction. Yes, there will be a learning curve, but any UI (or input device, if you want to be specific) should be usable from the very beginning. Right now, that's not the case. Even though a tutorial might teach the basic controls, most games require far more competence than just "the basics" even on the first levels. The learning curve for ANY user interface or input device should BEGIN at "conscious competence" and peak at "unconscious mastery," but currently, the learning curve for Dual Shock-sty1e controllers begins at "conscious incompetence," which is the most difficult phase to work through. In other words, it doesn't have a curve: it has a wall.
Most regular gamers are already past this wall, but potential gamers are not, and that's the point of the CliffyB quote: that modern Dual Shock-type controllers have a barrier for entry associated with them that discourages people from playing games, just like learning a language. With no real benefit to playing a game, and thus no motivation to begin playing, combined with the barrier for entry, no one who doesn't already play games will want to learn how to use a controller in the first place.
[QUOTE="goblaa"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="goblaa"]You all know this article has nothing to do with any of you? This thread is full of people who are used to and grew up with gamepads and experienced the evolution of them from the atari to today. of course you think nothing is wrong with today's gamepads.
But give a gamepad to someone who did not grow up playing video games and it's seriously intimidating.
If we can get to a point where our games are just as compelling as ever but with a simpler interface, what's to lose? I'll tell you what's to gain, a more respected hobby, that's what.
DerekLoffin
If I have to sacrifice all the complexity to get it 'respected', I'll gladly keep it in the disrespected category.
Making something less intimidating does not automatically mean it is better.
That's funny, I was under the impression that it was gameplay that added complexity and depth, not the controller.
The two kind need each other. I don't care how awesome a game developer you are, if I gave you a controller with nothing but 1 button, you can't make a complex game with it. A game's complexity is essentially capped off by the controller. The simplier you make the controller, the lower the complexity of the game goes.
Of course you can, some of the best games only use one button or no buttons at all. Look at the DS. NG: DS and Phantom hourglass are both very indepth games (well, NG is a bit of a hack and slasher, but NG has always been that). Both of them use all of zero buttons.
Were starting to get to the point where we can control games with a mind input device...that's essentially a button-less controller, but that doesn't mean the game is without depth or complexity.
I'm the mindset that every genre controls better with the wiimote/nunchuck over the standard gamepad (except fighters) because you get the exact same gameplay with more precision (thatks to the IR) with less button. (I know most disagree with me, but I feel they haven't thought it through)
Yes, in 30 minutes you can figure it out, but that's simply unacceptable, it should take 0 minutes. People who don't play games are simply intimidated by moderen controllers and there's no good reason they need to be designed the way they are. They are far from perfect or finished.
[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="goblaa"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="goblaa"]You all know this article has nothing to do with any of you? This thread is full of people who are used to and grew up with gamepads and experienced the evolution of them from the atari to today. of course you think nothing is wrong with today's gamepads.
But give a gamepad to someone who did not grow up playing video games and it's seriously intimidating.
If we can get to a point where our games are just as compelling as ever but with a simpler interface, what's to lose? I'll tell you what's to gain, a more respected hobby, that's what.
goblaa
If I have to sacrifice all the complexity to get it 'respected', I'll gladly keep it in the disrespected category.
Making something less intimidating does not automatically mean it is better.
That's funny, I was under the impression that it was gameplay that added complexity and depth, not the controller.
The two kind need each other. I don't care how awesome a game developer you are, if I gave you a controller with nothing but 1 button, you can't make a complex game with it. A game's complexity is essentially capped off by the controller. The simplier you make the controller, the lower the complexity of the game goes.
Of course you can, some of the best games only use one button or no buttons at all.
Sorry, I ignored the rest because you cleared missed my point. My example put that as ALL you have. You don't have sticks, touch screens, or motions, or anything else, you have 1 digital button. It's called the obsurd example percisely because it shows that no, a control must have a certain level of complexity to allow developers to make a certain level of complexity in their games. In point of fact, the touch screen is one of the most complex input device you can get as it has literally thousands of combinations of input it can put into it.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment