Too Many Buttons

[Spoon1138]

An interesting thought. But I really don't see a need for fewer inputs - I would actually like a few more so that I can stop dying in games because the context sensitive button gets confused because I'm standing too close to different contexts and makes me change guns instead of taking cover.

I agree that picking up a control pad for the first time can be intimidating but we all have to start somewhere. So instead of dumbing down the controls lets not throw people we want to get into gaming to the wolves on their first go. Start them off with a third person shooter and not a first. Sit them down with Fable before stampeding into Ninja Gaiden.

Baby steps are beautiful things.

 

[zombflux]

Okay. It's been said before, over and over, and yet so many people seem not to be listening, so allow me to state this clearly, with appropriate line breaks, bolding and use of Caps Lock.

Those of you who are "real gamers", who have mastered "Press L2 for frag grenade, press L3 for flash grenade", who could probably perform remote microsurgery with a controller?

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT FOR YOU.

This article explains (perhaps not the best way possible, but still) how a game with very complex controls could be boiled down to something as simple as an Atari 2600 controller. It is an effort to explain how controls could be simplified and condensed to make them more easily understood by someone who is new to that particular genre, or perhaps to electronic gaming itself.

Yeah, sounds great, you can even stamp a nice little "CONTROLS FOR RETARDS" sticker on the box, too.

Maybe you shouldn't play games if you think there's too many buttons.

The only other people I know who'd say that would be my mum and grandparents.

People like you two are a greater danger to gaming than a million Jack Thompsons. Why? Because you want gaming to stop growing. You want it to cater to you exclusively, to give you more of what you're familiar with, and to lock out those you deem "unworthy" with excessively complex controls and gameplay. Your path leads to stagnation, shrinking audiences, and eventually the death of "serious" gaming itself. Allow me to again make this clear:

PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT "EXPERT" GAMERS ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY STUPID.

Unless you were born with a 360 controller in your hand (in which case I feel sorry for your mother) you did not come into this world with "leet gamzorz smarts". You put in the hours and learned to deal with ever-increasingly complex control schemes and gameplay. Which is great. The problem is that you expect other people to start at the level you've reached. Saying "Dad, you're such an idiot, right trigger is for melee and left trigger is for grenades" is condescending to someone who's never operated anything more complex than an ATM machine.

If we don't make gaming more open and welcoming to new blood, it is eventually going to wither and die. You will, eventually, stop playing games- and who will take your place? All those people who could have gotten into serious gaming "back in the day" will have instead been put off by the complexity of the games and the snide attitude of the gamers, havling log since opted to stick with simple Popcap-type games that have immediate payoff and- more importantly- no snobby elitist looking down on them for being a "retard".

It gets awfully lonely up in those ivory towers, when you've driven away everyone who wanted to come take a look.

Downgrading controls = growing? I think you're a little confused, bud. You don't have to be a "gaming expert" to understand how to control a game. Sure, you might be a little awkward for the first 10 minutes if you're really new, but anyone with a half-decent short term memory should be able to understand basic game controls without them having to be dumbed down, and without having to spend the aforementioned hours to learn which buttons do what.

Making games worse so that more people will like them might seem like a "it's for the greater good!" situation to you, but if they're too dumb to get it, I don't want them crowding my multiplayer servers anyway.

Millions of people worldwide have gotten into gaming without the need to regress to "A to jump, B to attack" gameplay. If anything, you're the one who is anti-progress.

Retard.

Yes, millions of people worldwide have gotten into gaming. What I want is for that to continue. I'm not saying "make the games worse"; I'm saying take ease of control into mind, rather than have a button each assigned to "scratch left foot/right foot/groin/nose" just because there happen to be extra buttons on the controller. Especially games which don't allow for any sort of button reassignment- and this happens a lot on PC ports of console games- meaning you have to memorize exactly what button does what, when, rather than being able to set it to your own comfort. And this is seldom consistent along individual titles in a genre, with each having its own idea of what the "best" layout is. Sure, it's easy for experienced gamers, who expect certain functionality to carry over and need merely find the correct button, but for someone who's new? It's just going to be more confusing.

An "easy to learn, hard to master" ideal is not the terrible thing some people are making it out to be. Couching new players in a bit of a "comfort zone" to get them up and running does not at all take away from YOUR experience. All it would take is a handful of configurations and tutorials for anyone new to gaming, as well as other more complex ones for those who know what to do. Just because it comes naturally to you doesn't mean it does to everyone else, and struggling to understand complex controls while the game hands one pointless death after another to you doesn't appeal to everyone. I'm not calling for "A to jump, B to attack" like you claim- but I would just as soon see "five buttons for separate grenades, and if you confuse them you'll probably die" control schemes bite the dust.

A way for everyone to get into a game, from casual to hardcore. I think it's possible. If the idea of casuals playing "your" game on "your" servers offends you, I think the problem lies more with you than with them.

At some point you stop saying "make controls a little easier" and started saying "games have bad controls", so I'll assume you gave up. All I'm saying is, if it takes someone more than an hour to figure out the controls for a game, they should probably try something easier, like Minesweeper maybe, or pong. That's what you really want, isn't it? Back to the 70's with gaming controls!

Some games have bad controls, yes, and I do not like that, no, but saying that all games should have all their controls simplified just so we can appeal to a wider audience is, as stated, retarded.

However, I'm under the impression you're under the impression that gaming is going to die because you can't understand the controls in a game like Call of Duty 4 or Halo (not to mention on a console, which has less than half the commonly used buttons of the real man's machine: PC), then this argument is a waste of my time because I am arguing with, as stated, a retard.

Good day.

 

[thom_cat_]

All you need is a keyboard... and then bind the keys to whatever you want.
I have tons of unique binds just for the funzies.

 

[HalfCaptainRob]

While an interesting idea, there isn't really a problem with the amount of buttons on modern controllers.

Gamers are gamers because they can play video games, so the controller is almost always intuitively used by them. Think about a martial artist, they didn't have some easy version of what they were doing; they started with the basics and worked their way up to killing someone with their mind.

But seriously, yeah. As stated before, most genres have a common control scheme, and most gamers can identify immediately. FPS and racers are the most common, as the right shoulder trigger is almost always fire/accelerate. Square or circle (<<< is a PS3 owner) are reload/e-brake, e.t.c. e.t.c. Give most gamers a game, and they go about pushing all the buttons. Why? Because we're figuring out the control scheme.

The inherent problem isn't the medium (controller), but the person. Gaming does have a learning curve. That's what easy modes are for; while the enemy empties a hundred clips trying to kill you, you're pushing every button trying to remember (again) what button is reload, or switch weapon.

Yes, I use FPS as an example a lot. Mostly because FPS are what I usually play. Being they're the most fun genre out there.

 

[nicholaxxx]

that actually sounds terrible my litle cousin can pick up and play a paint ball shooter (yes, I have one on my PS2, trying to get him into shooters and don't want him playing anything gory untill I think he's ready for it) and he can control everything just fine, and your scheme sounds like it would be too confusing for him, would you rather explain this to him:
'OK billy, to change weapons, you need to get behind cover, do X to get into this menu, then select it from the menu, and press that button'
or:
'OK illy, to change weapons, you press this button'
??

I like the latter better, but if your youngins' are geniuouses, be my guest. All I know is, if this change happens perminantley if at all then I will happily bear the name 'retro gamer'

 

[Nutcase]

I'm not calling for "A to jump, B to attack" like you claim- but I would just as soon see "five buttons for separate grenades, and if you confuse them you'll probably die" control schemes bite the dust.

Decades of UI research says you and the writer of the article are wrong. If there are five available grenades, the most discoverable and easily learned way to represent them in controls is having a dedicated button for each.

Your argument seems to wander to unrelated things. "If you confuse them you'll probably die" is a matter of difficulty level, not controls.

A way for everyone to get into a game, from casual to hardcore. I think it's possible.

Nope, not when the game is complicated. The weak player can't deal with it and if you rip out enough elements to make it palatable (such as remove the grenade types), you have a different game.

The very idea that everything should be accessible to everyone is revoltingly stupid. Build an idiot proof system and nature will build a better idiot. You always have to draw a line somewhere or you won't have a game/book/movie at all.

 

[Woodsey]

Okay. It's been said before, over and over, and yet so many people seem not to be listening, so allow me to state this clearly, with appropriate line breaks, bolding and use of Caps Lock.

Those of you who are "real gamers", who have mastered "Press L2 for frag grenade, press L3 for flash grenade", who could probably perform remote microsurgery with a controller?

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT FOR YOU.

This article explains (perhaps not the best way possible, but still) how a game with very complex controls could be boiled down to something as simple as an Atari 2600 controller. It is an effort to explain how controls could be simplified and condensed to make them more easily understood by someone who is new to that particular genre, or perhaps to electronic gaming itself.

Yeah, sounds great, you can even stamp a nice little "CONTROLS FOR RETARDS" sticker on the box, too.

Maybe you shouldn't play games if you think there's too many buttons.

The only other people I know who'd say that would be my mum and grandparents.

People like you two are a greater danger to gaming than a million Jack Thompsons. Why? Because you want gaming to stop growing. You want it to cater to you exclusively, to give you more of what you're familiar with, and to lock out those you deem "unworthy" with excessively complex controls and gameplay. Your path leads to stagnation, shrinking audiences, and eventually the death of "serious" gaming itself. Allow me to again make this clear:

PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT "EXPERT" GAMERS ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY STUPID.

Unless you were born with a 360 controller in your hand (in which case I feel sorry for your mother) you did not come into this world with "leet gamzorz smarts". You put in the hours and learned to deal with ever-increasingly complex control schemes and gameplay. Which is great. The problem is that you expect other people to start at the level you've reached. Saying "Dad, you're such an idiot, right trigger is for melee and left trigger is for grenades" is condescending to someone who's never operated anything more complex than an ATM machine.

If we don't make gaming more open and welcoming to new blood, it is eventually going to wither and die. You will, eventually, stop playing games- and who will take your place? All those people who could have gotten into serious gaming "back in the day" will have instead been put off by the complexity of the games and the snide attitude of the gamers, havling log since opted to stick with simple Popcap-type games that have immediate payoff and- more importantly- no snobby elitist looking down on them for being a "retard".

It gets awfully lonely up in those ivory towers, when you've driven away everyone who wanted to come take a look.

Oh yes. You're so clever, I never knew you were a psycho-analyst!

Of course, that makes so much sense doesn't it - it's so clear to me now! I WANT the gaming industry to fail, wither and die, because secretly I despise my own hobby, oh thankyou you wise wise person.

And be thy trolling? "Unless you were born with a 360 controller in your hand (in which case I feel sorry for your mother)". One would certainly hope not. Oh, and I'm a PC gamer clever boy.

They're games, why should the controls be dumbed down to introduce others? We all managed didn't we?

You talk about condescending, maybe you should read your own posts once in a while.

 

[teknoarcanist]

I'm not entirely sure this sounds like such a hot idea. I'm reminded of the old joke wherein something fantastically complicated is controlled by one button; push it once to turn it on, push it three times in rapid succession to turn it off, push it once and hold it and spin around in circles while whistling "Fat Bottomed Girls" to do something else; if anybody complains, the inventor goes "What's so hard, man? It's one button!"

Rimshot.

I do agree, however, that before games can fully mainstream as an artform, the control barrier needs to be addressed. I remember popping a 360 controller into my mom's hands when she showed an interest in what I was playing (halo 3, at the time). She proceeded to spin in circles and fire blindly, before giving up in frustration. It wasn't that she 'wasn't listening' or 'not trying hard enough'; she quite literally could not play the game. It was outside of her ability. And sure, maybe with some practice it might have become a bit easier--but do we want games to play like a piano, or a movie?

 

[SyphonX]

I dont' know, maybe try PC gaming.. *gasp*. You know, where most of these games should have been.

 

[alterego2012]

I love the Internet. What's the saying? "All your carefully researched points can be easily ignored?"

First things first - John, great article! Love the line of thought and the fact that everything could either be cut or made context-sensitive. I would have never thought of this article because I AM one of those gamers who can just pick up a controller and be good to go after about 30 seconds. After reading, though, I remember when my dad tried to play...what was that game? I think it was Timesplitters 2, or maybe Nightfire...Anyway, he just couldn't get it. He gave up after a little bit and never played again.

I know that the internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS, but this article is addressing how to make games more accessible. Can 18 inputs be reduced to 2? Yes. Would this be a good FPS? Probably not, but that's not the point. The point is that more buttons, each of them doing one (UND PRECISELY ONE!) thing isn't always the best way to go. Maybe if more developers thought like this when designing their control scheme, we could have more easily-accessible controls.

Last thing, then I'm done. A lot of fighting games have six attack inputs - light, medium, heavy attacks for both high and low. Now, who loves Marval vs. Capcom 2? It has four - light and heavy for high and low. Medium happens when you hit light twice. And MvC 2 is awesome. That's what this article's point was for me.

Now, please continue flaming each other.

Edit: Grammar fail and clarification

 

[Prolateriat]

Remember the audience when you critique the game, please. Farcry 2 is not intended to be played by someone inexperienced with first person shooters on a console. That being said, I think this article misses the point.

Let's take a look at the PC; with a keyboard and a mouse standard, and any number of USB peripherals, that's a reasonably unlimited supply of input. Still, there are games that use only the mouse and left mouse button. On the other hand, RTS or FPS/RPG hybrids typically utilize every inch of the keyboard and all the mouse inputs.

The more input required, the harder it will be for someone who don't have the hardwired experience with the controls, and they shouldn't expect to play Halo or Farcry 2 right off the bat with any skill.

If you've got a friend who doesn't know which way to hold a joystick, get them hooked with some classic Mega Man or Worms before you throw them at a flight sim, okay? Those games are still fun, and both need a very minimal number of buttons to control. Even better, give them a copy of a Legend of Zelda port (the GBA one comes to mind). In any case, let them learn to rub their tummy and pat their head at the same time before you have them juggling.

Really, the same is true for any skill worth learning. It's all part of the human condition.

 

[Prolateriat]

>>Saying "Dad, you're such an idiot, right trigger is for melee and left trigger is for >>grenades" is condescending to someone who's never operated anything more complex than an >>ATM machine.

You know, I've gotten plently of advice from some Vietnam era dad's on how to field strip M16s and the proper way to carry your knife and grenades in the bush. I'm gonna say that adapting the physical act of stabbing someone with you're k-bar to a timely button press might take some getting used to, but I wouldn't condescend to think that they've "never operated anything more complex than an ATM". At the very least, give "dad" some credit, he was around when the technology was born, and ours is just a fanciful adaptation thereof.

 

[SideburnsPuppy]

I prefer the Joystique.

http://loadingreadyrun.com/videos/view/440/The-Joystique

 

[XelaisPWN]

Although this is a bit extreme, he does make a good point. A lot of fps's, and games in general, use more buttons than necessary. But, like I said, that's a bit extreme. I simply can't function with only one joystick anymore, period. I can do the whole N64/Dreamcast face buttons thing, but other than that, I can't play, for example, Doom the way it was designed to be played.

But everything in far cry to radial menus and timed button presses... that seems like a little much, don't it? It might work with a SNES controller, or if you want to sacrifice the strafing, an NES controller, but Far Cry 2600 would probably frustrate the hell out of
me...

But I agree, designers use way more buttons than necessarry. Maybe if this caught on it could be an option, like in Viva Piñata? It only used one stick, but there was a two-stick "advanced mode" setting.

 

[possessedtuba]

more button i think allow the player to become more in depth giver him a deeper level of interaction kinda like World of warcraft while less allow you to to perform a few primary actions like pong so it not that 2 many buttons are bad it just determined by what style and what pace the games at

 

[Mirroga]

I don't care that there are too many buttons, BUT I do care if the button assignments are both unnecessary, and if they're not well thought out (e.g. having a different button for inventory rather than the start button, or having sprint inconveniently places close to the fire button)

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

I'm in favour of getting rid of the run button on games (and possibly moving something that used to require a combination of buttons to there instead).
I'm really sure the other changes would make things any easier for newbies to learn, and would just be daft for more experieced games.

 

[Fasckira]

Ooo, ooo, great idea! Why dont we just completely port it to the Wii while we're at it to make it accessible to absolutely everyone (including those who lack previously required factors such as intelligence and dexterity).

As a few people have mentioned above, Far Cry 2 was never aimed at the casual gamer, just like WoW was never aimed at real gamers (I kid, I kid). Seriously though, when people start trying to simplify existing concepts its not long before you hit the "Press X not to die" scenario. Games like Fairy Cry 2 are supposed to be taxing (whether they actually are or not is completely a different arguement), and if you really want your wife to get into FPS gaming but dont want to treat her like an idiot then why not try her on a bit of Goldeneye on the N64? Perhaps even switch to Timesplitters if you're trying to keep it console.

 

[Altorin]

Alright, here's my perfect controller. Start with a SNES controller. Replace the D-Pad with a clickable analog stick. Add 2 more buttons on the back.

And that's it. 10 buttons and a clickable analog stick, in just the arrangement that fits me best.

And then maybe you can add a right analog stick

and tada, you have our current controller scheme.