The best way to eliminate buttons will be to develop the technology to plug consoles into our brains and control them with our minds.
Too Many Buttons
- Thread starter John Scott Tynes
- Start date
Thanks for the comments, folks. And just to ensure there are no misunderstandings: I will, personally, be visiting each of your houses tonight, removing all of your controllers, replacing them with Atari 2600 joysticks, and installing Far Cry 2600 on your consoles. I think we'll all learn a lot from this experience and in the end, we'll hug!
It was fun to read what you had to say. As one of you mentioned, this article is a thought exercise. I wanted to figure out just how much of our modern action gaming we could preserve even on a ludicrously reduced controller set. The answer is "too much" but even that surprised me. It does make me wish someone would mod an FPS to use Doom movement and vertical autoaim, as an experiment.
Dual-analog controls work great for tens of millions of hardcore gamers. I'm curious what strategies we can pursue to reach hundreds of millions on top of that.
It was fun to read what you had to say. As one of you mentioned, this article is a thought exercise. I wanted to figure out just how much of our modern action gaming we could preserve even on a ludicrously reduced controller set. The answer is "too much" but even that surprised me. It does make me wish someone would mod an FPS to use Doom movement and vertical autoaim, as an experiment.
Dual-analog controls work great for tens of millions of hardcore gamers. I'm curious what strategies we can pursue to reach hundreds of millions on top of that.
Actually I do agree with you, John. The button control sounds a lot like the Action button functionality of the A button in LoZ: OoT. The fewer, tactile-organized buttons on the N64 controller makes that my favorite out of the bunch developed over the years.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the original Wolfenstein have strafing? and no Head shots with your auto-aim idea.
context sensitive controls are nothing new but bound to the damn fire button would just be painful.
Sounds to me like a FPS control system that no FPS fan would like.
Although if for some reason you didn't have use of both hands or even one of your thumbs this could be a good starting point for a work around control system but you would still need more buttons.
context sensitive controls are nothing new but bound to the damn fire button would just be painful.
Sounds to me like a FPS control system that no FPS fan would like.
Although if for some reason you didn't have use of both hands or even one of your thumbs this could be a good starting point for a work around control system but you would still need more buttons.
This is a good idea, having relatively complicated controls or basic mechanics but no challenge beyond that is the opposite of being easy to learn and hard to master. But we need to take it to the next level. A game with no joystick and one push-to-win button. I wish I had a push to win button in Arkham Asylum, the difficulty curve spikes when you fight Bane.
Yeah, see how everyone here hates this idea? Its not intended for you, retards. The idea is to make it more accessible to new players who don't have the time nor the desire to learn to use 19 buttons.
The next time you people have a thought, you should probably just let it go, before you prove your idiocy.
The next time you people have a thought, you should probably just let it go, before you prove your idiocy.
Are you stupid? Can you not remember these buttons? Honestly, it's not even that hard.John Scott Tynes said:
Ugh. Ew. No. See, I don't want to play that game. That game doesn't sound like fun at all. Also, I can just imagine that a lot of the control scheme wouldn't work, like the jump button. What if I'm on a edge and shooting? I'll jump off. Fun. A lot of that control scheme just sounds aggravating and frustrating. Also, the number of buttons isn't really all that much of a problem, really.
They'd probably feel relieved that there's actually a game out there that they can play.TheNumber1Zero said:
I think a lot of people are taking this article a bit /too/ literally, and thus missing the point of it. I'm also seeing a lot of people saying things like "if anything we need more buttons", but that's the complete opposite direction gaming should take if it hopes to continue roping more players in. Take the Wii for example. As much as people mock the inaccurate waggle controls (especially Yahtzee), there's one thing that goes without denial: It's the mainstream king of gaming consoles right now.
People who aren't currently gamers look at the current consoles out there, and here's what they see: One console is over $300 and has a LOT of buttons on its controller. Maybe they've played it at a friend's house and they were just completely overwhelmed playing something as simple as Halo because they just couldn't wrap their heads around all the buttons. Then they look at the other console. It's under $300, and most of the controls for the game are motion-based. The controller itself has maybe 6 buttons. That's the console they're going to buy. And it's the console they HAVE been buying.
Gamers keep saying that more people should play game, and that gaming needs more acceptance, and blah blah blah blah. And yet we always insist that our games should be as inaccessible as possible. Any time that anything is made easy it turns into a shit-storm of gamers whining because they want it as hard as possible. And then they move-on to the next topic where they post in wonderment of why gaming isn't more accepted by the general populace. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
We want more people getting into games, we need more games that are /similar/ to what the article is talking about. Obviously we don't want to go so far back as to breaking-out our old Atari controllers, but we do need to start narrowing the scope a little to make the games more accessible to people who are newer to the gaming scene.
Perhaps something like a control set-up that would be similar to the button-light example in the OPs post, but the trade-off is that you have less actual control over your character. This would allow newer gamers (to the hobby or to the genre) to get into and learn the basics. Meanwhile there would also be the normal control set-up that would be something closer to what we're familiar with. It would allow for better control over your character and would be required for anyone playing the game seriously.
Thus, you have a game that's accessible to newer gamers by letting them have simple controls for a while, and then they can maybe step it up later or keep it on a casual basis. Meanwhile the hardcore gamers would still have their own control set-ups that they're already familiar with.
I understand that the author is trying to simplify and that's always a relevant idea.
But then he wants to use complex ideas like tap X to shoot, but hold X to do something else. In a firefight. This is not how humans work without training.
In addition, he wants to ignore technology; instead of holding the 2600 joystick forward for 3 seconds to run, why not just; slightly forward to walk, full forward to run, taking advantage of the digital technology that has informed controllers for two generations.
Finally, he wants to decimate ergonomics, which is FUCKING CRITICAL. The 2600 controllers were functional but hurt! The advances in controller design where you hold the device with two hands and use both of them so as not to inflict some horrible repetitive motion disorder on your hands is pretty damned important.
Look, I get that the gateway to new games for newbies is high, but is that a problem with the controller or the games? Susan even had an article [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/context-sensitive/6570-Easy-Should-Be-Easy] on the idea of making games easy for people who are new to videogames.
So there seems to be a schism here; is the problem the games or the interface? Could the interface be made as simple and friendly (both user and ergonomically) as possible? Yes. Should the game use multiple levels of difficulty to encourage new but challenge veteran players? Yes.
But you need to work damn hard to make your case that one ought to be done over the other.
But then he wants to use complex ideas like tap X to shoot, but hold X to do something else. In a firefight. This is not how humans work without training.
In addition, he wants to ignore technology; instead of holding the 2600 joystick forward for 3 seconds to run, why not just; slightly forward to walk, full forward to run, taking advantage of the digital technology that has informed controllers for two generations.
Finally, he wants to decimate ergonomics, which is FUCKING CRITICAL. The 2600 controllers were functional but hurt! The advances in controller design where you hold the device with two hands and use both of them so as not to inflict some horrible repetitive motion disorder on your hands is pretty damned important.
Look, I get that the gateway to new games for newbies is high, but is that a problem with the controller or the games? Susan even had an article [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/context-sensitive/6570-Easy-Should-Be-Easy] on the idea of making games easy for people who are new to videogames.
So there seems to be a schism here; is the problem the games or the interface? Could the interface be made as simple and friendly (both user and ergonomically) as possible? Yes. Should the game use multiple levels of difficulty to encourage new but challenge veteran players? Yes.
But you need to work damn hard to make your case that one ought to be done over the other.
As a game designer, UI is my thing. I really love wrapping my brain around how to do something within a control scheme, and so from that perspective, I enjoyed this article. Also, I am aware that some people just can't use controllers. My sister can't even walk using an analog stick, let alone do anything else but look at her feet or the sky in an FPS.
However, there is this problem I see with the "conforming to the bottom line" mentality in which games are simplified and features are cut in order to appeal to a more mainstream audience. I'm not so big on that. There are different sections of audiences, and games should be made to appeal to a specific audience. This means no complaining when a game has a deep and rich UI just because a newbie will be incapable of doing anything in it. That UI was made for a game targeted towards people who can use it (hopefully). On the other hand, this also means no complaining when games like "Party Babiez" comes out. Multiple audiences.
As far as I go, I find myself cramming huge amounts of depth into buttons. Even when I'm trying to think non-complexely, the best I end up with is something you simply couldn't pull off on anything less than a SNES. Radial menus, it should be noted, are fantastic. Properly implemented, they grant the user as many inputs as he or she needs without any serious loss in maneuverability. If you want a wonderful example, just look at Crysis. That radial menu is simply sublime.
However, there is this problem I see with the "conforming to the bottom line" mentality in which games are simplified and features are cut in order to appeal to a more mainstream audience. I'm not so big on that. There are different sections of audiences, and games should be made to appeal to a specific audience. This means no complaining when a game has a deep and rich UI just because a newbie will be incapable of doing anything in it. That UI was made for a game targeted towards people who can use it (hopefully). On the other hand, this also means no complaining when games like "Party Babiez" comes out. Multiple audiences.
As far as I go, I find myself cramming huge amounts of depth into buttons. Even when I'm trying to think non-complexely, the best I end up with is something you simply couldn't pull off on anything less than a SNES. Radial menus, it should be noted, are fantastic. Properly implemented, they grant the user as many inputs as he or she needs without any serious loss in maneuverability. If you want a wonderful example, just look at Crysis. That radial menu is simply sublime.
Again, I think you're taking the article a little too literally if you think the writer honestly thinks we'd be going back to Atari controllers. It's more an example than a serious idea.Smokescreen said:
How is there a schism? They're just talking about two different methods of achieving the same goal: Simplifying games for new-comers. Both writers are talking about the same subject, they're just mentioning different things that they've noticed can be a detriment to newer gamers; and they're both right.
Heck, as an avid gamer myself, anytime I play a new game I run into the problems mentioned in both articles. First I have to figure out which of the many buttons does what in the game, then I have to look at the game and figure out what everything means on the HuD. It's less of an obstacle for me because I'm used to that so I pick it up easily, but a new gamer who hasn't jumped that hurdle a dozen times already is gonna have his head spinning about half-way through trying to pick it up.
Really? Because he spent a page and a half of a 3 page article describing the idea. So if it's more an example then a whole lot of time was invested in it.WhiteTigerShiro said:
How is there a schism? They're just talking about two different methods of achieving the same goal: Simplifying games for new-comers. Both writers are talking about the same subject, they're just mentioning different things that they've noticed can be a detriment to newer gamers; and they're both right.
Heck, as an avid gamer myself, anytime I play a new game I run into the problems mentioned in both articles. First I have to figure out which of the many buttons does what in the game, then I have to look at the game and figure out what everything means on the HuD. It's less of an obstacle for me because I'm used to that so I pick it up easily, but a new gamer who hasn't jumped that hurdle a dozen times already is gonna have his head spinning about half-way through trying to pick it up.[/quote]
Schism might've been too strong a word; but while they're both right both articles are extremely underdeveloped in their approaches to the solution.
And as a gamer-if you want to say that's what you are-then having to 'look at the game and figure out what everything means on the HuD' is STANDARD. That's how games work now. If you want to see the objections to those obstacles, check out the comments to Susan's article; there are a bunch of well thought out issues there and I think that the options available to give people a bridge from casual to hardcore gaming are slim. But the criticisms of these approaches are valid and should be taken into consideration before jumping on the bandwagon of 'there's a horrible problem that needs to be fixed.'
Not that you are; I'm just saying that if the simple solutions were so simple, why wouldn't the be implemented already?
I was thinking exactly the same thing about the mac wheel when I read about the radial menu51gunner said:
To be honest I don't think there's such a thing as too many buttons, when it comes to PC games at least. Especially with fast-paced multi-player FPS games like Quake, I like to have a key bind for each weapon. I want to be able to switch from rocket launcher to gauntlet or shotgun in the split of a second.But I see what John is doing here, he's pulling a PETA. Asking us to use only one button is like asking Ben & Jerry to use human milk. It's a great way to make us think about what we're doing and that we shouldn't always complain about too many buttons.
- "But John, we can't play complex games with just one button!"
- "Exactly."
John Scott Tynes said:
Disagree totally. I feel the Xbox 360 controller barely has enough buttons.
Games are supposed to take skill. I suppose we could simplify by just making an "I win" button, but no thanks. More buttons means more functions and more complexity, which allows for more challenge.