The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Imagine the scenario – you wait months for a game to come out. When its released you break your piggy bank (or maybe that’s just me), rush to the shops, purchase it with your hard earned cash, and get home and put it into your PS2/Gamecube/Xbox drive. So far, so good. The title screen comes up, and you start a new game, and its everything that you expected – the graphics are mindblowing, the AI unbelievable, the sound awesome. You pick up the pad and…the controls are terrible. All those other factors that made the game so initially great are instantly negated by a terrible control system. Oh dear.
Effective, efficient, and most of all, easy controls are pivotal in making a successful game. Part of this is down to the quality of the controller, but let’s face it, there is hardly any disparity between controllers these days that that is a non-factor. But it’s the ease at which a game can be played that is most important – Nintendo released this initially with Zelda 64, where on button was used for different actions (which Rare would later term as ‘context sensitive’ in Conker’s BFD), to ensure that in difficult situations, you know exactly what you are doing rather than fumbling around looking for the right button to press.
Control systems can be bad in two main ways – the can be clunky and complicated, or they can simply be downright illogical. But it’s the ease at which a game can be played that is most important – Nintendo released this initially with Zelda 64, where on button was used for different actions (which Rare would later term as ‘context sensitive’ in Conker’s BFD), to ensure that in difficult situations, you know exactly what you are doing rather than fumbling around looking for the right button to press. Nintendo showed just how much they valued the worth of effective control, to the extent that the N64 controller was designed with Mario 64 in mind, ensuring seamless ease of play.
Control systems can be bad in two main ways – the can be clunky and complicated, or they can simply be downright illogical. My personal favourite game, Shenmue, unfortunately manages to be both at the same time. Put simply, to not include 3D analogue control these days is criminal (exemplified in the fact the controllers of the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube have two apiece). To continue the criminal analogy further, in Shenmue’s case relegating the analogue stick to the secondary function of look was worthy of a lengthy prison sentence. Shenmue’s system is illogical as well, as there seems to be no reasoning behind such a rigid system. In the original Tomb Raiders, a case can be made because of the need for precision jumping.
Problems with control also arise in FPS, in that there is a mismatch between physical action and virtual action. Looking and turning is assigned to an analogue stick, because manipulating a joystick is relatively similar to turning your head in reality. But you’re then required to use buttons to run and strafe, which doesn’t make sense, in terms of controlling human movement, as we do not always run in the direction our heads are pointing, for example. Another poor way of control is using the mouse in FPSs, because then you are not shooting, you are simply pointing out where you want to shot, which requires half the skill e.g. Silent Scope on Dreamcast, if using the mouse, becomes stupidly easy. The method of control can change how effective the game is.
When studying Economics at school, I used to learn about barriers to trade, etc. To apply that concept here, poor control systems are a barrier to enjoyment – for videogame veterans a little time and patience and we’ll adjust, but to new fans and beginners, they will simply be put off but this. Conversely, a simple game controls will ensure success – take games like Samba de Amigo, the Dreamcast maraca-‘em-up, a huge hit at parties and the like because first time players can get into it instantly, because as the interface is so accessible, the game is instantly enjoyable. Keep that in mind, developers.
Thanks for reading, Russ.
Effective, efficient, and most of all, easy controls are pivotal in making a successful game. Part of this is down to the quality of the controller, but let’s face it, there is hardly any disparity between controllers these days that that is a non-factor. But it’s the ease at which a game can be played that is most important – Nintendo released this initially with Zelda 64, where on button was used for different actions (which Rare would later term as ‘context sensitive’ in Conker’s BFD), to ensure that in difficult situations, you know exactly what you are doing rather than fumbling around looking for the right button to press.
Control systems can be bad in two main ways – the can be clunky and complicated, or they can simply be downright illogical. But it’s the ease at which a game can be played that is most important – Nintendo released this initially with Zelda 64, where on button was used for different actions (which Rare would later term as ‘context sensitive’ in Conker’s BFD), to ensure that in difficult situations, you know exactly what you are doing rather than fumbling around looking for the right button to press. Nintendo showed just how much they valued the worth of effective control, to the extent that the N64 controller was designed with Mario 64 in mind, ensuring seamless ease of play.
Control systems can be bad in two main ways – the can be clunky and complicated, or they can simply be downright illogical. My personal favourite game, Shenmue, unfortunately manages to be both at the same time. Put simply, to not include 3D analogue control these days is criminal (exemplified in the fact the controllers of the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube have two apiece). To continue the criminal analogy further, in Shenmue’s case relegating the analogue stick to the secondary function of look was worthy of a lengthy prison sentence. Shenmue’s system is illogical as well, as there seems to be no reasoning behind such a rigid system. In the original Tomb Raiders, a case can be made because of the need for precision jumping.
Problems with control also arise in FPS, in that there is a mismatch between physical action and virtual action. Looking and turning is assigned to an analogue stick, because manipulating a joystick is relatively similar to turning your head in reality. But you’re then required to use buttons to run and strafe, which doesn’t make sense, in terms of controlling human movement, as we do not always run in the direction our heads are pointing, for example. Another poor way of control is using the mouse in FPSs, because then you are not shooting, you are simply pointing out where you want to shot, which requires half the skill e.g. Silent Scope on Dreamcast, if using the mouse, becomes stupidly easy. The method of control can change how effective the game is.
When studying Economics at school, I used to learn about barriers to trade, etc. To apply that concept here, poor control systems are a barrier to enjoyment – for videogame veterans a little time and patience and we’ll adjust, but to new fans and beginners, they will simply be put off but this. Conversely, a simple game controls will ensure success – take games like Samba de Amigo, the Dreamcast maraca-‘em-up, a huge hit at parties and the like because first time players can get into it instantly, because as the interface is so accessible, the game is instantly enjoyable. Keep that in mind, developers.
Thanks for reading, Russ.
Page:
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Imagine the scenario – you wait months for a game to come out. When its released you break your piggy bank (or maybe that’s just me), rush to the shops, purchase it with your hard earned cash, and get home and put it into your PS2/Gamecube/Xbox drive. So far, so good. The title screen comes up, and you start a new game, and its everything that you expected – the graphics are mindblowing, the AI unbelievable, the sound awesome. You pick up the pad and…the controls are terrible. All those other factors that made the game so initially great are instantly negated by a terrible control system. Oh dear.
Effective, efficient, and most of all, easy controls are pivotal in making a successful game. Part of this is down to the quality of the controller, but let’s face it, there is hardly any disparity between controllers these days that that is a non-factor. But it’s the ease at which a game can be played that is most important – Nintendo released this initially with Zelda 64, where on button was used for different actions (which Rare would later term as ‘context sensitive’ in Conker’s BFD), to ensure that in difficult situations, you know exactly what you are doing rather than fumbling around looking for the right button to press.
Control systems can be bad in two main ways – the can be clunky and complicated, or they can simply be downright illogical. But it’s the ease at which a game can be played that is most important – Nintendo released this initially with Zelda 64, where on button was used for different actions (which Rare would later term as ‘context sensitive’ in Conker’s BFD), to ensure that in difficult situations, you know exactly what you are doing rather than fumbling around looking for the right button to press. Nintendo showed just how much they valued the worth of effective control, to the extent that the N64 controller was designed with Mario 64 in mind, ensuring seamless ease of play.
Control systems can be bad in two main ways – the can be clunky and complicated, or they can simply be downright illogical. My personal favourite game, Shenmue, unfortunately manages to be both at the same time. Put simply, to not include 3D analogue control these days is criminal (exemplified in the fact the controllers of the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube have two apiece). To continue the criminal analogy further, in Shenmue’s case relegating the analogue stick to the secondary function of look was worthy of a lengthy prison sentence. Shenmue’s system is illogical as well, as there seems to be no reasoning behind such a rigid system. In the original Tomb Raiders, a case can be made because of the need for precision jumping.
Problems with control also arise in FPS, in that there is a mismatch between physical action and virtual action. Looking and turning is assigned to an analogue stick, because manipulating a joystick is relatively similar to turning your head in reality. But you’re then required to use buttons to run and strafe, which doesn’t make sense, in terms of controlling human movement, as we do not always run in the direction our heads are pointing, for example. Another poor way of control is using the mouse in FPSs, because then you are not shooting, you are simply pointing out where you want to shot, which requires half the skill e.g. Silent Scope on Dreamcast, if using the mouse, becomes stupidly easy. The method of control can change how effective the game is.
When studying Economics at school, I used to learn about barriers to trade, etc. To apply that concept here, poor control systems are a barrier to enjoyment – for videogame veterans a little time and patience and we’ll adjust, but to new fans and beginners, they will simply be put off but this. Conversely, a simple game controls will ensure success – take games like Samba de Amigo, the Dreamcast maraca-‘em-up, a huge hit at parties and the like because first time players can get into it instantly, because as the interface is so accessible, the game is instantly enjoyable. Keep that in mind, developers.
Thanks for reading, Russ.
Effective, efficient, and most of all, easy controls are pivotal in making a successful game. Part of this is down to the quality of the controller, but let’s face it, there is hardly any disparity between controllers these days that that is a non-factor. But it’s the ease at which a game can be played that is most important – Nintendo released this initially with Zelda 64, where on button was used for different actions (which Rare would later term as ‘context sensitive’ in Conker’s BFD), to ensure that in difficult situations, you know exactly what you are doing rather than fumbling around looking for the right button to press.
Control systems can be bad in two main ways – the can be clunky and complicated, or they can simply be downright illogical. But it’s the ease at which a game can be played that is most important – Nintendo released this initially with Zelda 64, where on button was used for different actions (which Rare would later term as ‘context sensitive’ in Conker’s BFD), to ensure that in difficult situations, you know exactly what you are doing rather than fumbling around looking for the right button to press. Nintendo showed just how much they valued the worth of effective control, to the extent that the N64 controller was designed with Mario 64 in mind, ensuring seamless ease of play.
Control systems can be bad in two main ways – the can be clunky and complicated, or they can simply be downright illogical. My personal favourite game, Shenmue, unfortunately manages to be both at the same time. Put simply, to not include 3D analogue control these days is criminal (exemplified in the fact the controllers of the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube have two apiece). To continue the criminal analogy further, in Shenmue’s case relegating the analogue stick to the secondary function of look was worthy of a lengthy prison sentence. Shenmue’s system is illogical as well, as there seems to be no reasoning behind such a rigid system. In the original Tomb Raiders, a case can be made because of the need for precision jumping.
Problems with control also arise in FPS, in that there is a mismatch between physical action and virtual action. Looking and turning is assigned to an analogue stick, because manipulating a joystick is relatively similar to turning your head in reality. But you’re then required to use buttons to run and strafe, which doesn’t make sense, in terms of controlling human movement, as we do not always run in the direction our heads are pointing, for example. Another poor way of control is using the mouse in FPSs, because then you are not shooting, you are simply pointing out where you want to shot, which requires half the skill e.g. Silent Scope on Dreamcast, if using the mouse, becomes stupidly easy. The method of control can change how effective the game is.
When studying Economics at school, I used to learn about barriers to trade, etc. To apply that concept here, poor control systems are a barrier to enjoyment – for videogame veterans a little time and patience and we’ll adjust, but to new fans and beginners, they will simply be put off but this. Conversely, a simple game controls will ensure success – take games like Samba de Amigo, the Dreamcast maraca-‘em-up, a huge hit at parties and the like because first time players can get into it instantly, because as the interface is so accessible, the game is instantly enjoyable. Keep that in mind, developers.
Thanks for reading, Russ.
Page: