Too Many Buttons

[ProfessorLayton]

Ironically the edited version sounds even more complicated than the regular version. I know that it takes a while to learn all the controls, but every game is relatively the same. There are slightly different buttons for different actions so you just have to memorize one basic set of controls and then remember what game you're playing to remember whether they use the Y or A button to jump.

 

[Jamous]

I guess I'll see how it works out, if it's good, then great! But I have to say, I have my doubts as to people adjusting to it nice and smoothly. Though the idea does seem interesting, and it appeals to me.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

As long as the buttons are easy to reach, add as many as they want. You can even have some do nothing in games that don't require them. As long as I can keep my hands in one position and not have to reposition them to reach a button, I'm fine.

 

[feather240]

No, it's a bad idea. It's a really bad idea. You may have less buttons, but that doesn't help. You have to get rid of actions to simplify it. What's the difference between a game-boy without a 'B' button? All you have to do is press 'A' twice, but you still have to learn to do that. Changing it would only force developers and gamers to adapt.

 

[WafflesToo]

As a thought experiment I think the premise is intreguing. Not that I'd neccisarily accept a game with this control scheme but it's certainly food for thought.

Thoreau often said, "Simplify, simplify"

 

[twcblaze]

As a thought experiment I think the premise is intreguing. Not that I'd neccisarily accept a game with this control scheme but it's certainly food for thought.

Thoreau often said, "Simplify, simplify"

Henry David Thoreau (I'm guessing that's the one you're talking about) was also probably the only person to ever perfect a cure for insomnia while at the same time being a retard, I'm looking at you, Walden.

 

[Madshaw]

I think it is a brilliant idea, but normal "hard core" games should be made aswell, I'm sure that a console with the power of a PS3 or Xbox 360 would manage to handle 2 seperate controllers that can be used one instead of the other, so simple games can be made like the one in the article, for me to teach my dad with. While also having the hardcore set up for me to murder my little brother with

 

[Spygon]

sorry but you want auto aim for Movement above or below you.

You don't want to be able to walk round corners instead you want to only be able to sprint into the open like a pissed off horse asking please shoot me?.

You don't want be able to Jump at anytime so you can jump onto rooftops or other higher points to get a better position against the enemy?.

You want to be unable to crouch when the game doesn't want you to so you cant crouch while you're on low health behind a small mound while bullets hit the ground around you like you're in some war film. It sounds like you want a lot less strategy in your fps.

 

[Nutcase]

The article is ridiculous. Modes are much, much worse for learnability than a straight control-action mapping with more buttons. This is recognized in all basic UI design literature. Norman's "Design of Everyday Things" mentions, among other things, how a normal automobile dashboard has well over hundred controls and yet is usable to most people with little to no training.

I play a whole lot of modern games with a low amount of buttons. They are arcade games. Try some of them instead of asking for a complex FPS with a shitty UI.

 

[Kojiro ftt]

There is a huge fallacy here. You have eliminated "buttons" but not "inputs". In fact, you've made it worse. In the standard controller, the "fire" button is always "fire". That never changes. Now all the sudden your fire button is "radial menu" or "jump" or "open" depending on context. And it does different things depending whether you tap it or hold it, you know what? Each of those is another input. You have nearly the same number of inputs, but now they are cryptic, sometimes unintuitive, and confusing as hell because they are all on one button.

I can hear my wife now...

Wife: "How do I throw grenades again?"
Me: "Oh, well you have to go find some cover and stand behind it for a second, then you hit the button for the menu and select grenades. Try that."
Wife: "Hey, he's climbing on the cover!"
Me: "I guess that wasn't cover, must have been a climbable thing. Try something else."
Wife: "Ok, this looks like cover. But the button is still firing the gun!"
Me: "Because you faced the cover for more than 1 second, you are now in 'combat while in cover mode'."
Wife: "How do I stop that?"
Me: "I don't know, walk out and back in?"
Wife: "Now I am dead! We took too long. Fuck this game, who designed this shit?"
Me: "Let's play something else."

 

[Kojiro ftt]

The article is ridiculous. Modes are much, much worse for learnability than a straight control-action mapping with more buttons. This is recognized in all basic UI design literature. Norman's "Design of Everyday Things" mentions, among other things, how a normal automobile dashboard has well over hundred controls and yet is usable to most people with little to no training.

I play a whole lot of modern games with a low amount of buttons. They are arcade games. Try some of them instead of asking for a complex FPS with a shitty UI.

I was hoping a human factors student would chime in! I agree, 100%.

 

[WafflesToo]

As a thought experiment I think the premise is intreguing. Not that I'd neccisarily accept a game with this control scheme but it's certainly food for thought.

Thoreau often said, "Simplify, simplify"

Henry David Thoreau (I'm guessing that's the one you're talking about) was also probably the only person to ever perfect a cure for insomnia while at the same time being a retard, I'm looking at you, Walden.

Yes, that is why I come to the forums, the intellectual stimulation. The example given is very extreme and like most extreme examples isn't really usable but is more along the lines of lateral thinking.

Think farther outside the box about some of this, context-sensitivity with not one but two radial menues under your thumbs coupled with the tactical requirement of getting to a place of relative safety before accessing certain functions... could take inventory management to a whole new level if nothing else.

 

[Podunk]

Wow. For an interesting excersise in game theory, this article seems to have garnered some serious hate from our Escapist community. I thought it was an interesting idea, and I'm intrigued as to how it might actually play out. My only concern would be clicking the wrong thing at the wrong time, or ending up in a different 'mode' by accident. But for the most part I support this idea of simplification and the spirit of the article. A lot of the posters so far seem afraid that someone's going to come into their house at night and pry the buttons off of their controllers now. It's kind of a shame to see just how many people have missed the point entirely.

 

[RootbeerJello]

I think it would be more experimental than to improve the experience for me, but I do really like the idea of simplifying a game's control scheme. I think 2600 might be a bit too simple to make Far Cry work very well, maybe something more like a NES with a joystick could work, but I'm really intrigued by this idea and how it would affect my play. [/ramble]

 

[Kojiro ftt]

Think farther outside the box about some of this, context-sensitivity with not one but two radial menues under your thumbs coupled with the tactical requirement of getting to a place of relative safety before accessing certain functions... could take inventory management to a whole new level if nothing else.

As a game mechanic, that is a good idea, but not a new one. Basically any game with an inventory screen that doesn't pause the action already does this. I do love the radial menu, which is slowly becoming more and more of a standard feature.

 

[LimeJester]

It's an interesting concept but I think having to explain the contextual controls to someone is more complicated than explaining to them what the set of buttons does independantly. Sure it would simplify the amount of manual manipulation needed, but it wouldn't make things mentally simpler. As gamers we are up to speed on contextual controls because we often use them, but I think my Mom would be baffled if she had to learn when and where she can do this or that. Plus we have all seen games where it's not coded properly and for some mysterious reason you can't activate some sort of contextual action from some place you generally should be able to. And we all know that is just frustrating enough to rage quit. To a non-initiated person this would be a deal breaker I believe.

 

[The Heik]

Fewer buttons wouldn't work.

Besides the nightmare in programming necessary to get that to work even remotely well, it'd actually be harder for a player to cope with different situations. Suddenly having your buttons change their meaning half way though an action is a good way to get killed, and the controller to get broken.

 

[Shy_Guy]

I can't believe this is was even posted.

Let me get this straight... In order to make games less confusing for the people who have little or no interest anyway (which is the real reason they won't play, not because of how omygoodness hard to use modern controllers are), we make them much more confusing and plain stupid?

I had to look at the calendar when I read about removing jumping from games. I wish it were April first...

How is
"Press A to jump"
harder to understand than
"Press A to jump, but only when you're near a rock or a fence, otherwise A is used to roll, unless you're getting shot in which case it's used to shoot. Also, you can't jump over rocks while getting shot unless you're turned around from the shooter and running"

About the only good idea was the radial menu, which many games already have in some way.

 

[shadow_hazuki]

Why do we need to simplify our games? You mentioned about being able to play games with others, so why not play a co-op arcade game?

Taking out the dual-analog for modern FPS won't work. Its a wonderfully proven system that makes sense and works.

Limiting to one-button takes out all of the perks and wonderful features added in to modern games that make them more interactive, more realistic, and more fast-paced. Not to mention all of the quick-time events would be thrown out.

The fire or use button will always, ALWAYS, need its own button, no matter what. Attaching a menu to that same button would make for a really complicated and slow system.

The concept itself isn't workable for the games coming out nowadays, however the idea is nice. I think a two-joystick, two-button approach would work better if in the right hands, but really, in the end, having a wonderful loadout of buttons means that several different options are always available, and in the games out today, running around shooting the same gun until it runs out, or having to find cover to change it, just won't cut it.

 

[Blackadder51]

This is a shit idea

I like my buttons, and this new system will cause more problems then it will solve