Apparently, Gamepro's idea of an "ideal" controller is....

[QUOTE="goblaa"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]

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.

DerekLoffin

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.

Yet it's also one of the SIMPLEST input devices.

You're confusing usability with functionality. Both a touch screen controller and a single-button controller are simple in functionality, but the touchscreen is far more usable because its function is more versatile. Excess functionality is what makes input devices complex, not usability.

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.mjarantilla

Actually, that has yet to be shown. I find more often the gestures are much harder to get right than just pressing a button or sequence of buttons.

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.mjarantilla

I'm sorry, but this is BS, especially when you match it up again Wii. The controller doesn't set the learning curve in general, the game designer does, and that can be huge just as easily on the Wii as it is on the gamepad. I have yet to see anything complex done on my Wii that the gamepad couldn't do just as simply.

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.

mjarantilla

The true barrier here is that the games are complex, not the controls. It's no shock that many of the Wii's biggest newcomer games are also some of the most simple minded ones.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="goblaa"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]

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.

mjarantilla

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.

Yet it's also one of the SIMPLEST input devices.

You're confusing usability with functionality. Both a touch screen controller and a single-button controller are simple in functionality, but the touchscreen is far more usable because its function is more versatile. Excess functionality is what makes input devices complex, not usability.

No I'm not, and now you're talking a completely different arguement which I wasn't even addressing originally.

Actually, that has yet to be shown. I find more often the gestures are much harder to get right than just pressing a button or sequence of buttons.DerekLoffin

That's because developers right now are using gestures LIKE buttons: as triggers rather than gestures. They're just compounding the problem by approaching it from a completely wrong perspective. Gesture control should be smooth and flowing, and should NOT rely on triggers (or should at least hide the triggers).

I'm sorry, but this is BS, especially when you match it up again Wii. The controller doesn't set the learning curve in general, the game designer does, and that can be huge just as easily on the Wii as it is on the gamepad. DerekLoffin

True, but unnecessarily complicated controllers encourage unnecessarily complicated control designs.

I have yet to see anything complex done on my Wii that the gamepad couldn't do just as simply.DerekLoffin

Resident Evil 4 was singled out as a game that was improved tremendously by the Wii remote from a control standpoint. It made the game significantly easier, which may have taken away from the experience, but that's because it was originally designed for the gamepad, not the Wii remote. A similar Resident Evil game designed from the ground-up for the Wii remote would have been considerably better than RE4, and RE4 was already one of the best games of the last generation.

Then there's also Trauma Center. Try to show me how THAT can be done on the gamepad. It's simple, yet it's also complex.

The true barrier here is that the games are complex, not the controls. It's no shock that many of the Wii's biggest newcomer games are also some of the most simple minded ones.DerekLoffin

Again, that's simply overcompensation on the part of the developers who haven't yet learned how to use the Wii remote to perform gestures. Someone earlier pointed out Ninja Gaiden DS and Phantom Hourglass as great examples of games that are simple to control but complex to play.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="goblaa"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]

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.

DerekLoffin

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.

Yet it's also one of the SIMPLEST input devices.

You're confusing usability with functionality. Both a touch screen controller and a single-button controller are simple in functionality, but the touchscreen is far more usable because its function is more versatile. Excess functionality is what makes input devices complex, not usability.

No I'm not, and now you're talking a completely different arguement which I wasn't even addressing originally.

"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."

THAT is your own statement, which is what I was contending is wrong. As I said, you're confusing usability with functionality. A controller with a single button is as simple as a controller with a touchscreen, but a touchscreen (or, in the case of the Wiimote, a pointer) is far more usable than a button.

You're drawing a conclusion ("A game's complexity is capped by the controller") based on the wrong premise (that functionality is the main determinant of a controller's capability for complexity).

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="goblaa"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]

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.

mjarantilla

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.

Yet it's also one of the SIMPLEST input devices.

You're confusing usability with functionality. Both a touch screen controller and a single-button controller are simple in functionality, but the touchscreen is far more usable because its function is more versatile. Excess functionality is what makes input devices complex, not usability.

No I'm not, and now you're talking a completely different arguement which I wasn't even addressing originally.

"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."

THAT is your own statement, which is what I was contending is wrong.

You show me a complex game with 1 button and NOTHING ELSE. Till then, you're wrong. The point is solid, that you can't accept it because it shows your argument is flawed shows you're just being stubborn. Your original response to this was actually better, but why you insist now on contradicting even yourself I don't know.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="goblaa"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]

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.

DerekLoffin

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.

Yet it's also one of the SIMPLEST input devices.

You're confusing usability with functionality. Both a touch screen controller and a single-button controller are simple in functionality, but the touchscreen is far more usable because its function is more versatile. Excess functionality is what makes input devices complex, not usability.

No I'm not, and now you're talking a completely different arguement which I wasn't even addressing originally.

"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."

THAT is your own statement, which is what I was contending is wrong.

You show me a complex game with 1 button and NOTHING ELSE. Till then, you're wrong. The point is solid, that you can't accept it because it shows your argument is flawed shows you're just being stubborn. Your original response to this was actually better, but why you insist now on contradicting even yourself I don't know.

No, you don't understand:

IT'S A WORTHLESS POINT TO MAKE.

I don't even understand why you're trying to argue it. I'll gladly admit that you can't make a complex game with one button, because such a situation would never even come up in reality. So unless you want to keep arguing about fantasy, you'll get back to reality and start arguing a RELEVANT point rather than an IRRELEVANT one.

Or maybe you're just confusing me with goblaa.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]Actually, that has yet to be shown. I find more often the gestures are much harder to get right than just pressing a button or sequence of buttons.mjarantilla

That's because developers right now are using gestures LIKE buttons: as triggers rather than gestures. They're just compounding the problem by approaching it from a completely wrong perspective. Gesture control should be smooth and flowing, and should NOT rely on triggers (or should at least hide the triggers).

Thank you for your agreement that it hasn't been shown.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]I'm sorry, but this is BS, especially when you match it up again Wii. The controller doesn't set the learning curve in general, the game designer does, and that can be huge just as easily on the Wii as it is on the gamepad. mjarantilla

True, but unnecessarily complicated controllers encourage unnecessarily complicated control designs.

And the opposite is also true, simplier controls encourage dumbed down designs.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]I have yet to see anything complex done on my Wii that the gamepad couldn't do just as simply.mjarantilla

Resident Evil 4 was singled out as a game that was improved tremendously by the Wii remote from a control standpoint. It made the game significantly easier, which may have taken away from the experience, but that's because it was originally designed for the gamepad, not the Wii remote. A similar Resident Evil game designed from the ground-up for the Wii remote would have been considerably better than RE4, and RE4 was already one of the best games of the last generation.

Then there's also Trauma Center. Try to show me how THAT can be done on the gamepad. It's simple, yet it's also complex.

Considering things like Okami actually got harder to control also originally designed for gamepad, I certainly can see it.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]The true barrier here is that the games are complex, not the controls. It's no shock that many of the Wii's biggest newcomer games are also some of the most simple minded ones.mjarantilla

Again, that's simply overcompensation on the part of the developers who haven't yet learned how to use the Wii remote to perform gestures. Someone earlier pointed out Ninja Gaiden DS and Phantom Hourglass as great examples of games that are simple to control but complex to play.

And again, all you have done is support my point. You profess to this possibility and I'll be nice say it might happen, but as of right now it isn't. In many cases, instead of making things easier, but equally complicated, Wii controls have done the exact opposite, make them simplier yet still hard. The grossest example of this is Lair (not the Wii, but still motion) where the controls are so bad the game was ruined, while the controls could have been mapped to standard game pad controls and done well.

No, you don't understand:

IT'S A WORTHLESS POINT TO MAKE.

I don't even understand why you're trying to argue it. I'll gladly admit that you can't make a complex game with one button, because such a situation would never even come up in reality. So unless you want to keep arguing about fantasy, you'll get back to reality and start arguing a RELEVANT point rather than an IRRELEVANT one.

Or maybe you're just confusing me with goblaa.

mjarantilla

Would you stop taking this argue in a completely different direction than it was mean to address:

Original statement:

That's funny, I was under the impression that it was gameplay that added complexity and depth, not the controller.

This is FALSE for exactly why I put down. The controller obviously can put the cap on the complexity. Arguing otherwise is idiotic. You even realized this:

There are thresholds to everything. A control system that uses an entire keyboard is TOO complex. A single button controller is TOO simple.

Now your arguing there is no lower threshold? Why? My argument wasn't meant to touch on anything else, so stop trying to interpret it as anything else.

Thank you for your agreement that it hasn't been shown.DerekLoffin

Actually it has been shown. I was speaking in general terms.

And the opposite is also true, simplier controls encourage dumbed down designs.DerekLoffin

Yes, but that is a better point to start from because it encourages smarter game design.

Considering things like Okami actually got harder to control also originally designed for gamepad, I certainly can see it.DerekLoffin

What? Not sure exactly what you're getting at by mentioning Okami.

And again, all you have done is support my point. You profess to this possibility and I'll be nice say it might happen, but as of right now it isn't. In many cases, instead of making things easier, but equally complicated, Wii controls have done the exact opposite, make them simplier yet still hard.DerekLoffin

Again, I was speaking in general terms. It HAS been done on the Wii. And again, I bring up Resident Evil and Trauma Center.

The grossest example of this is Lair (not the Wii, but still motion) where the controls are so bad the game was ruined, while the controls could have been mapped to standard game pad controls and done well.DerekLoffin

The only part of Lair mapped to motion controls was the flight controls, and I agree, those were done poorly. But had the game been made with the Wiimote, the flight could've still been mapped to the analog stick, while other actions were controlled by gesture or pointer controls. For example: aiming the fire breath with the pointer instead of having to change the dragon's direction.

Would you stop taking this argue in a completely different direction than it was mean to address:DerekLoffin

Of course. Now, would you stop trying to pursue a moot point?

That's funny, I was under the impression that it was gameplay that added complexity and depth, not the controller.DerekLoffin

I never said this. Learn who you're replying to, please.

This is FALSE for exactly why I put down. The controller obviously can put the cap on the complexity. Arguing otherwise is idiotic. You even realized this:

There are thresholds to everything. A control system that uses an entire keyboard is TOO complex. A single button controller is TOO simple.DerekLoffin

THIS I said, and I was right. At the time, I was referring to functionality. Since goblaa (or you) brought up the touchscreen, I'm now bringing up a complementary point: that a control system can provide complex usability, but still remain simple in functionality.

Now your arguing there is no lower threshold? Why? My argument wasn't meant to touch on anything else, so stop trying to interpret it as anything else.DerekLoffin

There is definitely a lower threshold in USABILITY. Learn the difference.

What? Not sure exactly what you're getting at by mentioning Okami.

mjarantilla

Okami has controls that are seemingly IDEAL for a complex pointing mechanism, but actually ended up being harder with that same pointing mechanism. It just goes to show that controls that seem hard/easy on a control interface in fact may not be.

I'm sure certain games the Wii controller will make slightly easier, just as I'm equally sure it make others harder. All forms of control have a few shining moments, but we're talking for overall usage. The Wii control has shown weaknesses, like SSBB for example where pretty everybody recommends using a GC controller. Likewise, most everybody who is a RTS fan wouldn't be caught dead using a gamepad and instead use KB/M. These are just their particular strength, they don't speak to general 'betterness' of the control mechansim.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

What? Not sure exactly what you're getting at by mentioning Okami.

DerekLoffin

Okami has controls that are seemingly IDEAL for a complex pointing mechanism, but actually ended up being harder with that same pointing mechanism. It just goes to show that controls that seem hard/easy on a control interface in fact may not be.

I'm sure certain games the Wii controller will make slightly easier, just as I'm equally sure it make others harder. All forms of control have a few shining moments, but we're talking for overall usage. The Wii control has shown weaknesses, like SSBB for example where pretty everybody recommends using a GC controller. Likewise, most everybody who is a RTS fan wouldn't be caught dead using a gamepad and instead use KB/M. These are just their particular strength, they don't speak to general 'betterness' of the control mechansim.

Wait, how is Okami "ideal" for a complex pointing mechanism? It's an action-adventure like Zelda, right? The only part that would actually use the pointer is the big paintbrush, right?

If that's true (I haven't played either version of Okami yet), then it's no more "ideal" for the Wiimote than Zelda. And from what I've heard, the paintbrush's use HAS been significantly improved.

As for SSBB, I'm not an SSB enthusiast (I haven't played Melee or SSB), but I honestly do not see why people say the GCN controller is better. My cousin (who IS an SSB enthusiast) says that it's just a matter of using what's familiar, because the Wiimote + nunchuck configuration has the same buttons the GCN controller uses to play SSBB.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]Would you stop taking this argue in a completely different direction than it was mean to address:mjarantilla

Of course. Now, would you stop trying to pursue a moot point?

THEN stop bring it back up every other post! I considered it resolved, and you decided apparently to interpet it totally differently and argue it again. I was trying to correct someone who clearly didn't understand what the point was about and you decided to argue something completely different.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]That's funny, I was under the impression that it was gameplay that added complexity and depth, not the controller.mjarantilla

I never said this. Learn who you're replying to, please.

I never said you did, it was who I was originally replying too, and now I start to understand you are off on a total tangent.

Look, I'm done. You can believe whatever you want, but my original point stands and if you actually bother to follow the point you would realize that. It's sad that you don't and insist on changing what it was addressing.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]Would you stop taking this in a completely different direction than it was mean to address:DerekLoffin

Of course. Now, would you stop trying to pursue a moot point?

THEN stop bring it back up every other post! I considered it resolved, and you decided apparently to interpet it totally differently and argue it again. I was trying to correct someone who clearly didn't understand what the point was about and you decided to argue something completely different.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]That's funny, I was under the impression that it was gameplay that added complexity and depth, not the controller.mjarantilla

I never said this. Learn who you're replying to, please.

I never said you did, it was who I was originally replying too, and now I start to understand you are off on a total tangent.

Look, I'm done. You can believe whatever you want, but my original point stands and if you actually bother to follow the point you would realize that. It's sad that you don't and insist on changing what it was addressing.

Your point stands because it's a worthless point to argue. I didn't change anything.

Originally, I was talking only of button complexity. I agree with you there: if you're talking about controllers simply as collections of buttons, then yes,t here is a threshold. However, you later brought up the point of the touchscreen, which stands clearly as a demonstration of a simpler controller, yet you said it's "one of the most complex input devices." By bringing up that point, you expanded the scope of the argument.

I am arguing from the perspective of that expanded scope, which includes controllers BEYOND just button-based controllers, while you are still stuck on what is now a worthless position.

When did most of us start playing games? i can remember playing a master system when i was 4, mega drive a few years later, then Starwars TieFighter using pretty much the entire keyboard, i couldn't have been older than 11. It does not take a genius to figure out a gamepad. There is no barrier even close to learning a foriegn language involved playing games on a dualshock, we should not limit face buttons out of hand to just because it scares stupid poeple.

It doesn't even matter how many buttons the user is presented with, in most cases only a fraction are used. A simple controller doesn't even neccessarily reduce the complexity of games. RTS games can use 1 button and mouse movement as a control scheme but it's known as a intimidating genre to alot of poeple.

I don't know how game journalists can even be suggesting this as a good idea. I think motion controls are cool but most of the wii games i've played just tack on the shake as a mapped button press because they lack enough face buttons, the IR pointing the the most useful thing it has atm.

When did most of us start playing games? i can remember playing a master system when i was 4, mega drive a few years later, then Starwars TieFighter using pretty much the entire keyboard, i couldn't have been older than 11. It does not take a genius to figure out a gamepad. There is no barrier even close to learning a foriegn language involved playing games on a dualshock, we should not limit face buttons out of hand to just because it scares stupid poeple.

It doesn't even matter how many buttons the user is presented with, in most cases only a fraction are used. A simple controller doesn't even neccessarily reduce the complexity of games. RTS games can use 1 button and mouse movement as a control scheme but it's known as a intimidating genre to alot of poeple.

I don't know how game journalists can even be suggesting this as a good idea. I think motion controls are cool but most of the wii games i've played just tack on the shake as a mapped button press because they lack enough face buttons, the IR pointing the the most useful thing it has atm.ChinoJamesKeene

Did you ever consider the possibility that YOU are not the kind of person they are talking about when they talk about a barrier for entry?

The mere fact that there is a gaming population at all proves that this is a guideline, NOT a rule. And the fact that the gaming population is extremely tiny in comparison to other forms of entertainment proves that it is STILL a niche industry with no chance of growing if the status quo is maintained.

[QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"]

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.

Hewkii

you won't be escaping the "nerd" stereotype, though, which is more desirable.

Nerd = "I'm smarter than you" so thats fine with me.

Lol does anyone take GamePro seriously, let alone still read their magazine?Evz0rz

I definetly don't. I get GameInformer which I enjoy but do not pay for. I came free with my ebgames card.

Nerd = "I'm smarter than you" so thats fine with me.

Pro_wrestler

I suppose the "elitist" stereotype follows that.