Topic: They should have removed buttons from the controller

@Meowpheel True enough. Can't argue with that...

@Agriculture @Meowpheel makes a good point, so I'm going to step out of the discussion now, but I'll leave you with one final thought:

It's actually developers/publishers that dictate what is necessary on console controllers, so if that's not a prime example of software dictating what the hardware controller is like, then I don't know what is, seeing as it is them making the games and them knowing what they NEED to make them work on a console.

They also for the most part dictate what kind of power needs to be in the box itself, so make no mistake: the developers have a BIG say in what is needed, both in the console and on the controller, so they wouldn't go asking for surplus buttons if they didn't really think they were needed.

Sure, you could argue that racing games were just fine with using the A button for acceleration, but analog triggers just feel so much more natural to the genre, and that's just one of dozens of examples. Time evolves, people evolve, and games also evolve. It's just the natural way of things. Either resist and stay unsatisfied forever, or go with the flow and enjoy the ride...

I personally have no difficulties using any controller of any console, even the special controllers that some consoles had or have. And switching weapons is an industry standard as well, so no qualms there from me and millions of other gamers either. You REALLY need to do some soul searching. If no one else here shares your sentiments, then you should take into consideration that something else entirely is going on here.

But thanks for the discussion and for taking me posting a sarcastic video without moaning about it, but this is truly where I leave this topic.

ThanosReXXX out. Peace.

Software developers have less experience with the ergonomics of a controller than for example Microsoft. So the way it works now is that software dictates what is needed on a controller, then the hardware manufacturer do the best they can with those requirements.

The most obvious fallout of this is a d-pad on Xbox and Switch that you can't even reach properly, because there needs to be a d-pad no matter what.

What I am proposing is that companies like Microsoft and Nintendo figure out what movements make sense from an ergonomically perspective and then the software developers will have to work with that. If your game needs 8 action buttons instead of the 6 the controller has, then something has to be cut.

The objection against this is of course that it would limit what developers can make, but that is one of the key features of a console; a simplified gaming experience. For more elaborate games there is always the PC, or special controllers like the Steel Battalion controller.

So there you are, with your arguments defeated and no possibility of a come back!

ITT: person wants console gaming to completely take up the mobile game genre and delete all other games that require higher levels of coordination.

@Agriculture
If you want mobile gaming, use a phone! It's a device that already exists in plentiful supply, and the developers behind it are many, there's no lack of content and much of it is free!

No need to come into a company selling bananas and complain that banans aren't apples and apples are really popular right now so that company should stop producing bananas and take up apples.

Millions of people like, enjoy, and continue to purchase and play modern console games, putting their money where they want it to go, more or less without silly complaint asking to remove accessibility features. There is a very strong market for Bananas. If a console developer released a console with minimal buttons, they would be stoned, hung and quartered by the critics, and they would get dropped like a sack of potatoes, and get no developer/publisher support.

You're attempting to argue what you believe is optimal in the face of ten thousand engineers, a hundred thousand developers, 40 years of collective experience and a trillion dollar market.

Simplified (colloqially known as "dumbed down") games however is not. Consoles are developed to make the gaming market more penetratable for the average user who might be baffled by the unintuitive requirements of PC gaming and the prohibitive costs that comes with purchasing a prebuilt gaming rig, and make videogames easier to set up and play without the hassle of install times, viruses, and outdated hardware and software. No part of that is making videogames a cut-down experience of what PCs offer, because there is a lot of crossover in the userbase and removing many game genres and techniques that we've built up over time would be so draconian it would ostracize almost the entirety of a consoles market. It would be the equivalant of changing Hollywood so they can only make films without using cuts, to deliver a more "followable" movie experience.

I'm gonna shoot this "There are too many buttons" thing right now.

I have a hand disability. My right thumb is injured and thus, on a standard Xbox controller for instance, cant stretch to reach the right analog stick, I have to physically shift my hand.

Now, does that mean I dont want that button or control option there? No. I make do. For instance its in that space for all controllers - but I manage, as some are more reachable than others. Is it a struggle sometimes? Yeah, it really is. But at no point do I think, man, this gameplay experience would be objectively better if I, a rare case, didn't have to work around an injury to use this additional functionality of a controller that has been standard for the 20 years I have been gaming.

Do I want a simplified experience simply because I am gaming on a console, and God forbid like you suggest, ONLY have that simplified experience available? LORD NO!

I'd want both because variety is the spice of life.

And for the record, this quote made me laugh like you wouldn't believe -

Who has been in the games industry longer? Square Enix, Capcom, Activision, Ubisoft, Nintendo, SEGA, Konami, Bethesda...or Microsoft.

What the **** is this stupid statement? Gamers WANT these complex experiences that make the most out of the available controls just as much as those not as invested in the hobby can enjoy games that don't require the most out of controllers. Are you literally tone-deaf with how the industry and game design actually works?

I don't care that I'm pulling an ad hominem here, you're being hardheaded and willfully ignorant to the point that attacking the argument isn't worth it.

You, sir, made my day with this video. And I just woke up so that makes this even more impressive.

@Agriculture have you considered that midern console gaming is NOT for you?
You are probably the ONLY person on the planet that want simplified controllers.
We are not 1990 so we should just move forward.

Out of curiosity do you have any problems with your hands? Any medical conditions that might make your gaming harder?

@Agriculture I understand where you're coming from - you are certainly not trolling. However, I have to agree with the views of others on this one, although your points are understandable. This is because:

• Games are more complicated nowadays. Even Nintendo games, which are traditionally noted for their simplicity, involve numerous endeavors. Reducing the number of buttons would either make things MORE complicated (by involving complicated combos to pull off) or make the game less playable

A good example of this is the Wii mote plus Nunchuk combo. The Wii mote by itself missed a lot of inputs, so Nintendo had to add the Nunchuk to add an analog stick (which was commonplace for more than 10 years prior) and a few more buttons. Even then, many games felt simplified due to less buttons available, and many were affected by lack of camera control due to lack of a second analog stick

• Having less buttons gives third parties another excuse to skip Nintendo hardware. I get what you're saying; it could make developers rethink their games and introduce more thoughtful controls. However, there is one flaw with this logic - you trust the developers to put in said effort. They will be more likely to throw their hands in the air and say "forget it - no Nintendo, just PS/Xbox/PC" than reconfigure their entire game to suit Nintendo's control style with fewer buttons
• If games need less buttons, they will use less buttons. For example, Mario Kart isn't too complicated, so the Y and B buttons serve the same purpose and the A and X buttons serve the same purpose. If there are fewer buttons, then games that require more complex interactions would be negatively affected.

In short, what you're saying is understandable and worked in the past because games were simple back then and used a 2D plane (which naturally limited the types of interactions you could have compared to a 3D plane). Now, there are numerous ways to interact with 3D environments in games, and more buttons are necessary so that developers' visions aren't hampered in any way.

Your philosophy works wonders in other areas — for example, Apple has used your exact philosophy to great effect, with making iPhones and iPads very simplified (just one button) allowing a simplified interface that made it easier for people to interact with the device and thus enhanced user experience. However, in video games, this philosophy just does not work because it leads to the opposite effect - a worse user experience - due to the reasons I mentioned above.

Simpler controls are not always more intuitive or easier either.
Yoshi's island uses less buttons than Skyrim and many other games like Skyrim but it is less intuitive and more difficult to learn its control scheme.
And Yoshi's island is a first party Nintendo game specifically meant to be played on consoles, many games like Skyrim have their roots in PC gaming (so does Skyrim too, but it clearly has been developed with the gamepad in mind - and I'm happy about that, just to make it clear)
Animal crossing is a game specifically made to be played on consoles but it has nothing to do with fast reflexes and eyes - hands coordination.
Consoles are meant to be user friendly, fast, practical and possibly rather cheap, other than that if they also give you the chance to play more complex games it is only a good thing.
I have no problems at all with the position of the D-Pad, I can perfectly use it and it works just fine. If you want to play simpler games with the Switch (and/or other consoles too of course) controllers you perfectly can, but there are many games that you wouyldn't be able to play with a simplified controller.
The idea of a watered down controller is just plain wrong.

I mean, they exist, and you can play really fun games with just 2-4 buttons, (see Hammerwatch, CRAWL, Crypt of the Necrodancer) but arguing that the entire gaming community would be better off with simpler controls is just lunacy. Not to mention the fact that the very notion of videogames as an artform is threatened by this ludicrous claim of conformity.

@Blathers it is wrong to force them as standard controllers for a console. You rule out many different games and some genres as a whole that way. The controls are one of the best thing Switch has, and in some games you can even use a single joy con if you want, there is absolutely nothing one can say against Switch controllers. You can make it as simple or as complex as you want / as a game need. Complaining about it is nonsense.
Additional buttons really don't get in the way when you want to play simpler games.
It is true (for example) that it is more difficult to access all the buttons if there are four buttons instead of just three, but usually games are made so that you don't need to reach all those buttons at the same time.
A game must be made so that you can comfortably reach a button in a situation where you need it or you are more likely to press it. This way it is not a problem if not all buttons are equally easy to reach every single time. You are supposed to move your fingers while you are playing, and the developers should (and usually do) consider the position of your fingers in every different situation. That's why you usually don't notice that it is not easy to reach all of the four buttons at the same time even if it is actually true that it is not easy.
Just to make an example.

But don't you think it's a problem that console games are becoming more complex? I remember when I got the reboot of Devil May Cry, called DMC on PS4 and they introduced changing weapons in the middle of battle and it was a disaster. And the other point about third party developers not want to develop for the Switch; Nintendo is already taking a huge risk by doing something unique, so a few more changes isn't that big of a deal. Also, before the Switch, there wasn't any requirement from developers that handhelds needed so many buttons. The only requirements voiced by developers is that a handheld needs two analog sticks if they are going to do 3D gaming.

This is patently false. When rpgs started to be moved from PC to console, they got simplified menus, less systems and was overall simplified. It is true that PC games have in turn been following this development and now many PC rpgs are also equally simplified.

So you agree that console videogames are not a cut-down version of PC games?

Is this thread still going? Dang, guys - congrats! You even drew in some of the big-name posters. Well done.

@Agriculture I get where you're coming from. But I do not think it's a problem that console games are becoming more complex. And to be fair, has there really been an increase in buttons since the N64 era? Looking at Nintendo systems, there has maybe been the addition of ZL and ZR, which was to compensate for the L1L2/R1R2 of PS and four shoulder buttons of Xbox.

And I understand that you're thinking that simplicity will force developers to rethink their control strategies and make controls more streamlined and better - it would force them to be more considerate and creative of their control strategies. But in reality, most developers would just simply decide to not develop for Nintendo at all instead of change their entire game to fit a Nintendo system. That would be a devastating blow to third party so it would definitely not be worth it.

And more buttons allows for more interactions with a 3D environment, allowing developers to express their vision better. It allows games to get bigger and more lively. The examples you cited with GTA is less of an issue of too many buttons as it is an issue of using the incorrect buttons for that particular action. That should be done more ergonomically and is up to the developer to properly implement (for example, someone shouldn't ask you to hold down A and simultaneously move camera with the right stick - thats not a problem with too many buttons but a problem of ergonomics on the part of the developers). Your example with Devil May Cry is the same thing - not an issue with too many buttons, but with developer implantation of certain actions to the wrong buttons.

1. Yes, older consoles like PS1 and N64 also had lots of buttons, but they often didn't use them. The N64 d-pad was rarely used, and on Tekken for PS1 all you could do is rebind the 4 trigger buttons to act as simplified controls for players not good at pressing two buttons at the same time.

2. Nintendo had a golden opportunity to scale back on the number of buttons because it was a handheld/hybrid they released and there wasn't an expectation of a handheld having so many buttons. They could at least have gotten rid of the d-pad and two of the triggers.

@Agriculture If you do not have any issues with the N64 d-pad, I don't see why the Switch d-pad should be removed. The d-pad will be useful for sidescrolling 2D platformers and a potential virtual console, on top of providing easy inventory management. The triggers are there to provide platform parity with PS and Xbox

It is exactly that it is a console/handheld hybrid why Nintendo added more buttons. Since they are having Switch as a home console as well, they cannot remove any buttons, as that would imply it's not quite a home console in the same vein as PS and Xbox. In order to be a home console, it needed more buttons, and Nintendo provided them. More buttons doesnt hurt games that don't need many buttons, but having less buttons does hurt games that need more buttons. It was definitely the right decision to add more buttons - any less and people would think the Switch was not really a home console as Nintendo suggests.

@rallydefault Even I'm surprised it's still going & I mostly posted my early replies because I felt it unfair that people were mocking the thread for trolling despite the OP being so obviously earnest.

The whole issue comes down to Nintendo having to provide the same level of functionality in it's Switch controller as the XboxOne & PS4 in order to be taken seriously as a console - having less would dissuade some developers and "gaming snobs" from considering the Switch. While I can see a valid theoretical point for simplifying the joycons, it's unfortunately not practical. Though I will disclose my love of the current button setup.

With the stick layout of the Pro Controller, many people end up using the stick for 2D games anyways since the d-pad is harder to reach. The only good d-pad experience is in my opinion the Dualshock 4, since it has a good d-pad that is also placed in a natural position. Why even bother with a d-pad on a controller that has staggered sticks? And I do think staggered sticks is way better, so it makes sense to just drop the d-pad.

@Agriculture What makes you say "many people end up using the stick for 2D games anyways since the d-pad is harder to reach"? Who are these people and how do you know this? I've certainly never had nay issue reaching the D-pad and my 11 year old nephew goes for the D-pad on 2D games. I don't use the D-pad on the Pro myself but that's because it's not a very good one on the original Pro's. Instead I bought an SF-30 Pro because there's not a chance I'd consider using the Pro's analogue as an alternative.

"Why even bother with a d-pad on a controller that has staggered sticks? "

This part doesn't even make sense.