@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.
It's difficult to reach since it's not in the position that your thumb naturally end up when using the controller.
With the stick layout of the Pro Controller, many people [who?] end up using the stick for 2D games anyways since the d-pad is harder to reach.[citation needed].
In any case even if literally nobody used the d-pad even in 2D games, which is clearly not the case, why remove it? It's not hurting anyone by existing. It's not like your thumb is somehow fatigued by the existence of a button you're never going to press. And in any case if the D-Pad is hard to reach then the right stick is surely harder still given it's just that little bit further away from the natural arc of your thumb than the D-Pad is.
Like I said in my earlier post, of the 12 buttons on a controller only two are inaccessible without moving your grip. Those are start and select. The buttons under the sticks are very accessible but are a little bit harder to depress than the others. So I don't know why you're focusing your rage on buttons that aren't those. I also don't understand how you think what is essentially 8 regular buttons is too much for complex 3D games.
So what would your controller even look like? Three buttons, two triggers and one analogue stick. Logically it wouldn't have start/select because they're too hard to reach. Logically it wouldn't have buttons under the sticks. And there's no way you could get your head around a second stick if it's not also front and centre. So good luck playing a 3D game with one stick and less buttons than the SNES. Even the Wii had more than that before you even take into account the d-Pad, 1 and 2 which were harder to reach than anything on the Switch controller.
I don’t necessarily agree with this idea but the logic isn’t that absurd. I’ve been introducing my 3 year old daughter to games via the SNES classic and there are too many buttons on that for her to handle at once. Having lots of buttons does encourage their use and mostly clever design could get around their need to begin with.
There’s also evidence that getting rid of buttons make your products more commercially successful too. Aside from the obvious (Wii) there’s also the iPhone that released with one button when the trend was to add full qwerty keyboards to phones. Entrenched elitists cry and scream but simplicity is a proven route to success.
All that said - don’t be crazy man! The Switch audience is a hobbyist audience so it needs those buttons for any chance of parity. Simplicity of control and handholding needs is better coming from the devs. MK8 Deluxe is a perfect example.
And Nintendos own games often don't even make use of all the buttons, instead in games like Super Mario Odyssey and Kirby lots of the buttons do the same thing.
Not all Nintendo games may take advantage of these controls, but other games do use them through 3rd party developers. Bayonetta makes use of all the controls, same with Xenoblade Chronicles 2
What about Metroid Prime? RPGs make use of multiple buttons?
There’s also evidence that getting rid of buttons make your products more commercially successful too. Aside from the obvious (Wii) there’s also the iPhone that released with one button when the trend was to add full qwerty keyboards to phones.
There is a point at which reducing input makes it more difficult to achieve the desired effect. This is all part of UX. iPhones didn't do away with the keyboards, they simply made them touch-screen only. (something that was already done with the PDAs of the time) Phones have proceeded to work with a dynamic interface of the touch screen to great success with many touch-controlled games and applications. However, different genres require different inputs. The action genre especially with the high-precision games such as Fighting Games that many fans came to love since the days of the arcade have stuck, garnered a solid userbase, and has an ever persistent demand. Ask any competitive ARMS player which control scheme they prefer: intuitive motion controls, or a responsive pro controller. Taking the discussion literally - twinsticks simply can't be played without dual game toggles, (or some clumsy d-pad stand ins) for that's the nature of the genre. Any game that involves an avatar you want to have a lot of control over requires many tools to facilitate that, be they buttons and toggles, VR controllers and cameras, etc.
The iPhone has inputs that serve its purpose of being a dynamic, understandable, and sleek device that can be used as a phone, a web browser, a media device, and a versatile hand-held PDA.
The Switch (and all other dedicated gaming consoles of the last 20 years) have inputs that best serve its purpose of being a responsive, reliable, and robust system that is designed to be very good at running games of every kind.
I can't recall ever having played a game where I needed to use every button right from the start in order to enjoy it.
Take Splatoon 2 for example, when I first started, I just got the basics down (move, fire, reload) and jumped right in (2 sticks, 2 buttons) - after a while, I discovered the 'sub' and 'special' weapon buttons (+2) and started to incorporate those functions in to my gameplay - after a few more hours with the game, I started to make use of the chat buttons (+2) and the quick map (+1) etc, adding some 'advanced' functionality to my gameplay...in a sense, the game has a 'basic' control scheme and an 'advanced' control scheme rolled in to one.
Was the game any less enjoyable when I was just using the basic commands? No.
Did the additional controls add to the game once I felt more comfortable with the basic controls? You bet.
Same goes for Rocket League - the basic controls are all you really need, but the 4 'quick chat' buttons (for example) enhance the gameplay experience (once you get used to them) by allowing you to quickly and effectively communicate with your teammates on the fly. The same goes for most games.
Not only that, but different games target different audiences - and map the buttons accordingly. My girlfriend (more of a casual gamer) prefers slower-paced games, or games with more simplistic control schemes - and there are plenty of games that cater to her tastes. I'm more comfortable with 'advanced' controls - and there are plenty of games that cater to my tastes. My grandad didn't like to use buttons at all - and Wii Sports (etc) catered to him.
The OP cites RPGs as a genre of game that features unnecessarily over-complicated button mapping - but my girlfriend, as a casual gamer, seems to have no problem playing Pokemon. Sure, there are some more 'hardcore' RPGs out there that she wouldn't touch - but those games aren't targeting gamers like her. If the likes of Pokemon didn't exist, it'd be an issue - the entire RPG genre would be inaccessible to casual gamers - but it does exist...and it's the same across the board. 'Entry level' games tend to favour more simplistic controls schemes - 'hardcore' games tend to feature those same basic commands, with extra functions mapped to to the additional buttons for those that are more comfortable using them - different flavours for people with different tastes.
If a Switch game featured something silly - like having to regularly push '+' to inhale and '-' to exhale to make your character breathe, necessary to keep them alive - it'd be rightly slammed. Those buttons aren't easily accessible and it'd be an unnecessary over-complication...but most games tend to consider their target audience - and balance the number of functions/complexity of the controls accordingly.
The number of buttons gives developers the scope to pick-and-choose which commands (and how many) they want to include in their game - but they can map the controls to as many or as little buttons as they wish. If they get the balance wrong, it could turn people off - Wii Sports wouldn't have been the success it was if it complicated the controls) - so, for that game (and others like it) they kept the controls nice and simple. For others, limiting the controls could turn people off (eg. an FPS using one analog stick) - so they have to tailor the controls accordingly.
Controllers haven't evolved over time by accident - they give both developers and gamers greater scope - simple control schemes are still prevalent, but 'advanced' control schemes are also possible. If a game has been unnecessarily over-complicated, that's a fault of the game - not the controller.
With the stick layout of the Pro Controller, many people [who?] end up using the stick for 2D games anyways since the d-pad is harder to reach.[citation needed].
In any case even if literally nobody used the d-pad even in 2D games, which is clearly not the case, why remove it? It's not hurting anyone by existing. It's not like your thumb is somehow fatigued by the existence of a button you're never going to press. And in any case if the D-Pad is hard to reach then the right stick is surely harder still given it's just that little bit further away from the natural arc of your thumb than the D-Pad is.
Like I said in my earlier post, of the 12 buttons on a controller only two are inaccessible without moving your grip. Those are start and select. The buttons under the sticks are very accessible but are a little bit harder to depress than the others. So I don't know why you're focusing your rage on buttons that aren't those. I also don't understand how you think what is essentially 8 regular buttons is too much for complex 3D games.
So what would your controller even look like? Three buttons, two triggers and one analogue stick. Logically it wouldn't have start/select because they're too hard to reach. Logically it wouldn't have buttons under the sticks. And there's no way you could get your head around a second stick if it's not also front and centre. So good luck playing a 3D game with one stick and less buttons than the SNES. Even the Wii had more than that before you even take into account the d-Pad, 1 and 2 which were harder to reach than anything on the Switch controller.
Do I really need to repeat myself yet another time? If a controller has a D-pad, then developers like Bethesda can add quick select features to games like Fallout 4. When the game has quick select features they will design it with that in mind, forcing players to take stim packs and change weapons in the middle of a fire fight. This breaks immersion and makes the game too complex to be enjoyed on a game console.
With the stick layout of the Pro Controller, many people [who?] end up using the stick for 2D games anyways since the d-pad is harder to reach.[citation needed].
In any case even if literally nobody used the d-pad even in 2D games, which is clearly not the case, why remove it? It's not hurting anyone by existing. It's not like your thumb is somehow fatigued by the existence of a button you're never going to press. And in any case if the D-Pad is hard to reach then the right stick is surely harder still given it's just that little bit further away from the natural arc of your thumb than the D-Pad is.
Like I said in my earlier post, of the 12 buttons on a controller only two are inaccessible without moving your grip. Those are start and select. The buttons under the sticks are very accessible but are a little bit harder to depress than the others. So I don't know why you're focusing your rage on buttons that aren't those. I also don't understand how you think what is essentially 8 regular buttons is too much for complex 3D games.
So what would your controller even look like? Three buttons, two triggers and one analogue stick. Logically it wouldn't have start/select because they're too hard to reach. Logically it wouldn't have buttons under the sticks. And there's no way you could get your head around a second stick if it's not also front and centre. So good luck playing a 3D game with one stick and less buttons than the SNES. Even the Wii had more than that before you even take into account the d-Pad, 1 and 2 which were harder to reach than anything on the Switch controller.
Do I really need to repeat myself yet another time? If a controller has a D-pad, then developers like Bethesda can add quick select features to games like Fallout 4. When the game has quick select features they will design it with that in mind, forcing players to take stim packs and change weapons in the middle of a fire fight. This breaks immersion and makes the game too complex to be enjoyed on a game console.
They do so because they want to do so. They want to make a game of this type. There are also people who want to make different type of games, more old school, you can buy them. There are many things that I don't like in certain games, there are many new kind of games that I usually don't like, I just don't buy them, I dont't say that people should have never invented 3D graphics or made consoles more powerful than 16 bit ones because I don't like Life is strange or Call of Duty or Heavy Rain or The last of us or Brothers (and yes, I don't like none of them). I couldn't enjoy 3D graphics in other games that I like and I would not gain anything from those games to not be made. Expecially if I am already aware that I don't like them, I don't spend money on them and for me it is like they were never made. If you just don't buy what you don't like why you feel the need to force people to make consoles in a way that what you don't like cannot be made? You are not gaining anything from it. Other people are losing something and maybe even you could find a game that uses those buttons but is made in a way that you like it, even you could lose something that way.
Do I really need to repeat myself yet another time?
Seems to be all you can do is say the same thing over and over because you don't exactly have any good counter arguments to most things said on this thread.
I was going to post a comparison between the Star Wars Battlefront games of PS2 and PSP, but then I saw the lunacy that shooters shouldn't have a crouch button, Fallout shouldn't have a quick menu on the d-pad, and... and, actually, yeah. Let's do this simply.
Every single button of a PS2 controller is used in some fashion for Star Wars Battlefront 2, whether that be continuous use such as shooting, rolling, or even moving, or smaller usage such as opening the map or entering a vehicle or turret. Battlefront 2 on the PSP - if you want to use the same controls scheme, loses a lot of functionality from no second stick, the lack of two extra shoulder buttons, and no clickable stick button. There are other control schemes to choose from, but then you turn the game into a simplified experience just to get most of that functionality back. And let's not even talk about the DS version of Elite Squadron, which isn't even a Battlefront game in the simplest sense of the term.
You could argue that nearly every single genre of game should stay PC only - in which case only fighters and platformers would exist for consoles. As others have said, the state of console gaming at the minute is to cater to those who don't want the additional complexity of gaming on a PC. The only controller that has ever had a problem of not being able to reach all the action buttons is the Gamecube controller, but that design is somehow the one I like most. Everyone has things they like and dislike, but there's liking and disliking things, and then limiting design to cater to the simplest solutions - which in this day and age would be a serious knock-back on the advancements made.
Forums
Topic: They should have removed buttons from the controller
Posts 81 to 96 of 96
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.