next »

[Lyx]

A few weeks back when SYNSO2 was announced, i not just commented on the frontpage how much i like that game, but also raised two points of criticism. One of them was about the controls and it was clearly marked by me as a matter of taste. In short, i disliked that firing-axes and movement-axes are identical - i prefer being able to adjust both individually. Oddbob replied by explaining not just that the game was designed around both not being independent, but that it also was a deliberate choice to amplify an aggressive and "primitive" feel to the game. In short, the game is supposed to be focussed more towards mindless aggression, rather than tactical thought.

That made perfect sense to me, and i agreed that what i would have liked in the game, wouldn't fit into what it currently is. Still, whenever i fired up the game for a quick blast, it was an irritating mix of fascination mixed with a bit of frustration for me. I didn't gave that much further thought for a while. Then a few hours ago i began to think again about it, because i just can't stand conflicts in me head which go like "i know its right, and yet i dont like it".

It would seem that behind game controls is actually much more, than just an interface to the game. Different controls can significantly change what a game has to offer to the player. This became apparent to me, when i thought more about what it is that i prefer about dual controls, and why i like it in general.

In the case of shooters, it for me is a mix of the controls being "efficient" and providng a "tactically interesting" gameplay. The efficiency aspect is quite easily explained: In a shooter, you make various maneuvres. The point is: Which action currently would make sense regarding movement, and which action currently would make sense regarding attacking, often isn't identical. So, if movement and firing direction is tied together, then i am faced with situations in which optimally i would need to do two things simultaneusly, and yet i need to decide between both, or shizophrenetically switch back and forth between them - either way, the result is "compensation": My interface is handicapped regarding the game situation, and i need to someway compensate that deficit. I know that quite a few people find that interesting - heck, entire games were designed around that (*cough* DUO). I however don't enjoy that at all.

And with this, we get to the other aspect: "providing a tactically interesting gameplay". I guess i can such a preference call a "desire for an intelligent challenge". It works like this: If movement and firing is tied, then in a shooter all the other gameworld entities (i.e. enemies) are designed around that player limitation. This, to put it bluntly, means that they need to be forgiving regarding that player weakness. If the player can only do A in a game, then the game must be winnable by only doing A - see, its simple. However, if the player can do A and B (move and fire independently simultaneusly), then the enemies difficulty can be bumped up futher, thus resulting in a more intense and tactically challenging gameplay. If the player can do more things, then the game can also require more of the player while remaining "winnable".

Now, all 3 previously mentioned aspects are a matter of player and developer preference. Different people may like different feel (or feels) to a game. Some may prefer a mentally more relaxing gameplay, while others may prefer something mentally challenging. Some may prefer faster required reflexes, others want stuff more easy-going. The list goes on. The funny thing which to me happened in the case of SYNSO2, was that the design-aspects of the game were a mixed bag regarding my preferences. I liked a lot of things about it, and yet there were some which made me feel handicapped.

Even more funny is that in the case of Iji, i found me at exactly the opposite end of the fence: Many players complained that the controls felt restrictive and handicapped. And yet, i partially liked the game BECAUSE of that, since - contrary to SYNSO2 - the limited controls resulted in a tactically more interesting game (felt more like fire-cover-fire play, rather than quake : ).

Okay, so at this point, i've contradicated myself with what i said in quite a few ways. Discussion opened

[NMcCoy]

By my declared preferences in game design, I should like Custom Robo more than Virtual On. This, however, is not the case. Even though I'm not really any good at it, there's something joyous in controlling your giant polygonal fighting robot with the dual sticks in the arcade booth.

[jamesP]

Your point about the developer trying to influence playstyle via the control scheme sounds really intriguing: is it possible to make the player become, say, irrational and violent due to the way the controls work? For example, could you make a game in which the player was a powerful monster (I'm thinking maybe the Minotaur or a troll), and then give them immense power but a sloppy control scheme? I'm inclined to think that this might make for a less player-driven experience - it might wind up so that the player effectively lumbers toward the enemy, presses the "crush" button and just watches their character destroy the enemy - but it's definitely something to be considered, especially since it could be tied to character development: if we paint the character as a mindless brute and then make them play in a brutal way, it increases cohesion and immersion.

There are a few games which spring to mind when discussing this. Jedi Knights 2 and 3 did this sort of thing quite well, I thought: while I, personally, would be hopeless with a lightsaber and wouldn't know what to do with a fistfull of lightning and force-grip, the control scheme made it easy for my character to fill the role of badass Dark Lord (mostly by giving me immense power). Assassin's Creed did a similar thing: my real life Parkour skills are nonexistent but, given the ease of the control scheme, I could play the game as though I knew exactly what I was doing, and get into that character's mindset. Of course, in both cases (particularly AC) the engine has a lot to do with it as well, but the control scheme is still an important link in the chain.

[mewse]

I would have enjoyed Hamlet more if in the final duelling scene, Hamlet had not been poisoned by Laertes, and thus became the only survivor of royal blood.  He would then have been consoled by the newly-arrived Prince Fortinbras, and then gone on to rule his kingdom with a wise and just hand, with a strapping young Fortinbras at his side.

Of course, that would completely have derailed the whole point of the play, but I'd have preferred that ending.  And I might have bought a Hamlet DVD if little Billy hadn't insisted on pushing his political agenda, and instead acquiesced to the demands of the masses and created a more fun play, instead of getting so wrapped up in some nebulous "message".

Dude, plays are supposed to be entertainment.  I don't want these depressing endings.  More plays like "Twelfth Night" in the future, please, Bill.  Thanks! 

 

[William Broom]

Your point about the developer trying to influence playstyle via the control scheme sounds really intriguing: is it possible to make the player become, say, irrational and violent due to the way the controls work? For example, could you make a game in which the player was a powerful monster (I'm thinking maybe the Minotaur or a troll), and then give them immense power but a sloppy control scheme? I'm inclined to think that this might make for a less player-driven experience - it might wind up so that the player effectively lumbers toward the enemy, presses the "crush" button and just watches their character destroy the enemy - but it's definitely something to be considered, especially since it could be tied to character development: if we paint the character as a mindless brute and then make them play in a brutal way, it increases cohesion and immersion.

This is basically what they did at the end of Shadow of the Colossus when (spoiler). And it worked really well.

[Aquin]

@Mewse:  I think comparing narrative structure of a passive experience (such as television or theatre) to one so actively involving as a video game is wreckless.  It's also kinda off-topic.

I can honestly say that there are a few games (even indie) where I fall into this.  For example, if I find the play control in a game to be contradictory to my survival, I get pissy.  If it takes too long to duck, or you slide around, or the hit detection seems spotty...

Whenever I die and it feels like "the game's fault" and not "my own stupid fault", I just get mad.  I'm not sure what the developer originally intended and I don't care.  I delete it and move on to the next game. 

And I love playing through ridiculously difficult games like Ninja Gaiden, so if you think that's what I'm talking about, you missed the point.

[mewse]

@Mewse:  I think comparing narrative structure of a passive experience (such as television or theatre) to one so actively involving as a video game is wreckless.  It's also kinda off-topic.

Dude, driving your car at high speed through a school zone is reckless.  What I did was to draw a comparison to another art form to look closer at the "what serves the message I want to convey" vs. "what do consumers want" dilemma, which is precisely what this thread is about. 

To my mind, that is neither "wreckless" nor off-topic.   

[Aquin]

Man, I can't believe I spelled reckless incorrectly. -_-

Yeah, I guess that's a good point.  I was just noting that 'what the developer wants to say' and 'what I want to hear' don't match up to well when 'the developer babbles with nonsense just to piss me off.'

I don't think that analogy worked. 

[jamesP]

Dude, plays are supposed to be entertainment.  I don't want these depressing endings.  More plays like "Twelfth Night" in the future, please, Bill.  Thanks! 

Of course, one major reason why everyone dies at the end of Hamlet is because it's a revenge tragedy, which basically means that the revenge hero's actions will cause everyone to die at the end. (The Revenger's Tragedy and Titus Andronicus both do this, too, since they're in the same genre.) This is kind of a throwback to Greek Tragedy, in which the point of the play was to purge the "community" of all its impurities. So in Hamlet, we have a corrupt court which is purged by killing everybody who is "infected", including Hamlet.

Of course, while I personally think Hamlet's death fits well with the rest of the play (plus it's a very moving scene with some great lines - "the rest is silence"), your own view is equally valid, and you do make a good point: one of the main reasons why Hamlet dies is simply because Shakespeare was doing what the rules said he ought to do, and what he, as a playwright, felt he wanted to do with the character. To tie this back into game development, I suppose the question is one of balance: if the developer gets to do exactly what they want with freaky control schemes then we get pretentious, frustrating games that nobody wants to play - but at the other end of the spectrum is something which I think is even worse: a world where all the developers do exactly what they think people want. If all game companies did this, we'd get the same shooter time and time again, and while I do like shooters, I want developers to branch out a little. I'm still waiting for a Tudor Diplomacy video game.

So somewhere in between is best: in this case, a game that has controls which tweak you towards a certain play-style, but hopefully in a non-frustrating way.

[Lyx]

About collision-detection: SYNSO2 actually tweaked that as well. It intentionally has very "forgiving" collision-detection. See: You play the game like some agile car with cannons mounted at the front. You "drive" around the playfield and mowing everything down in your path. And to add to the frenzy, there's lots of funky GFX. Both combined would result in many accidental player-deaths, thus encouraging him to play careful, rather than aggressive..... unless, the collision-detection would be intentionally "nice"... then suddenly "driving" into a mess of explosions isn't such a bad idea anymore

[Kadoba]

It's true that restrictive controls can sometimes add to the game play but responsive controls are almost always preferred by the player. At least most I can thing of . Sure if you want to master an awkward control scheme to enjoy a game, go for it.

The one shining example in favor of control restriction I can think of is Nox by Westwood. Everyone I have met hates that games for the control lag (All of the input is purposely delayed by a full half second) but it added an element of strategy and skill to it. One of the best multiplayer experiences ever, but most people just never gave it a chance.

 I once read a design book that said games are all about control - make the player feel powerful. Not sure if I completely agree with that but there is an element of truth to it. But I think its more of a mixture between control and challenge. If you want control then load up Morrowind's developer console, max out unarmed and go punch out Vivec. Too much control is boring and too much challenge is frustrating. Limiting the input adds a challenge and pulling off those controls effectively gives the player satisfaction.  I think this is dangerous ground as you're playing with the player's patience but hats off to designers that pull it off effectively.  .