Game controllers are too complicated

By Robert Purchese Published 26 February, 2008

Harrison and Molyneux in agreement.

Phil Harrison and Peter Molyneux have both agreed that game controllers are too complicated and put newcomers off, GamesIndustry.biz reports.

"You hand somebody a game controller and it's like you've handed them a live gun or a hand grenade with the pin taken out," said Harrison, soon to be former Sony Worldwide Studios boss.

We would have said it was like hot potatoes, Phil. But you carry on with your hand grenades.

Lionhead boss Peter Molyneux added: "We don't use half the buttons on the 360 controller, simply because the whole dream I've got is that someone will sit down to play Fable 2 who has never played a game before and they can play with someone who's played games the whole of their lives.

"I wish there wasn't so many buttons on the controller. You have to approach that in design terms by thinking you've only got one button."

Harrison went on to praise the Wiimote for being a "non-game centric device", and the iPhone for appealing to our natural instincts.

"I saw this first hand a few weeks ago where a two-year-old was playing with an iPhone and he knows how to get the pictures up of mum and dad," said Harrison.

"The two-year-old then intuitively thought that all electronic devices worked like that: he's pressing the TV to change channels."

"He's right and the rest of us are wrong - that should be applied universally. Apple should be applauded for that innovation," he added.

GamesIndustry.biz is complicated, which is why it hangs around with Fact and leaves popular Fiction alone.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (87) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Hunam #1 4 years ago

    I think they're both idiots.

  • ecureuil #2 4 years ago

    Fuck the n00bs. I want more buttons, the more the better.

    I want people who have never played games before to break down and cry when confronted by the monstrosity.

    This. :D

  • Luvbeers #3 4 years ago

    What exactly is he saying Apple innovated? The touchscreen?

  • mingster #4 4 years ago

    bring back the atari 2600 1 button joystick or my favourite kempston joystick i had on the speccy.

  • redneon Verified Programmer, SUMO Digital #5 4 years ago

    Something tells me Phil's trying to get a job at Apple....

  • Kbone28 #6 4 years ago

    I think the 360 controller is perfect.
    The more interactive the experience the better, take away the buttons it becomes less so.
    The wiimote still works because it offers simplicity with depth. so yeah these two seem shortsighted with their opinions.

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #7 4 years ago

    If he thinks im letting people get there finger prints all over my 52" LCD tele in the future he can fuck right off.

  • Fwing #8 4 years ago

    IMO the GameCube controller was pretty much perfect in terms of complexity: 2 sticks, 4 buttons, 2 triggers. I'm ignoring the rubbsih Z-button deliberately.

  • DUFFMAN5 #9 4 years ago

    Quickshot II it is then.

  • dan13l #10 4 years ago

    So, they're moaning about having too many buttons, but then compare gaming pads to a handgun (one "button";) and a grenade (no buttons). What could be simpler than a hand grenade? I reckon there's plenty of two year olds could figure that one out... wait, that sounded better in my head...

  • penhalion #11 4 years ago

    @redneon
    Something tells me Phil's trying to get a job at Apple....

    beat me to it :)

  • Greebo #12 4 years ago


    We had joysticks with one button for years through the 8bit era and gaming is much bigger now than it was then. Granted less people are interest in moving blocks round a screen than they are looking at the graphics we have today, but my point (lame as it is) still stands!

  • Eraser #13 4 years ago

    "The two-year-old then intuitively thought that all electronic devices worked like that: he's pressing the TV to change channels."

    "He's right and the rest of us are wrong

    Uh, yeah, right. You know, ages ago people pressed buttons on their TV to switch channels, but in the meantime, they have invented this thingy called a "remote", with which you can switch channels without getting up from your chair.

  • Blerk #14 4 years ago

    They're not.

    Just because a pad has 20 buttons does not mean that you have to use 20 buttons. Everyone seems to be very keen to say how stupidly complicated these things are, but the games that use them are just as bad.

    You can make a game that needs one button with a 20 button controller, but you can't make a game that needs ten buttons with a six button controller. Why dumb down the pad?

  • bad09 #15 4 years ago

    Ah this is nonsense!

    Too complicated? It's just some people just look and think that without actually trying it. People are scared of what they don't understand.

    It's true though the Wiimote is easy for all. Shove a 360 controller (or any of my consoles in the past for that matter) at my mum and she'll have a heart attack but she still had a go at WiiSports and liked it....so did I, it cracked me up as it was funny as hell to watch!

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #16 4 years ago

    No doubt Phil is just championing the controllers made by his new bosses at Atari.

    "Having more than 1 button is a last-gen feature..."

  • reality_cheque #17 4 years ago

    I think I use a total of 3 buttons and a stick to play Burnout... do they know you don't HAVE to assign an effect to each button?

  • Gurrah #18 4 years ago

    Great idea, let's put touch-sensors in every TV, and while we're at it, some windscreen-wipers to get rid of the inevitable smudges on your brand new plasma-monster. Why start reinventing the wheel when there's a perfectly good one out there - the mouse. It's basically a digital finger-extension. Instead of rubbing your dirty fingers on the screen, they rest on the mouse and you can still point & click wherever you like.

  • lennon #19 4 years ago

    My two year old knows how to get fireman sam up on my iphone. he also knows how to load a disc into my ps3 (he doesnt understand eject yet) he also knows he has to turn the amp on and switch it to the correct channel as well as push the button that switches the HDMI input. He knows how to pause and control the dvd menu system using the sixaxis. He doesnt know how to navigate the ps3 dashboard yet though.

    Id say your not giving children enough credit for how well they can understand complexity Harrison.

  • sharpfish #20 4 years ago

    'hand somebody a controller..'

    define 'somebody'

    If somebody looks at a controller like it's alien technology then they need to back the fuck away from games before the industry gets any more nerfed for idiots/non gamers.

  • Lebowski #21 4 years ago

    Oh do you ever stop whining, Molyneux?

    The 360 controller is the best there's ever been.

  • skillian #22 4 years ago

    Indeed, game controllers are too complex for parents/grandparents etc., but then so are video recorders, mobile phones, PCs and hundreds of other pieces of new technology, but we don't want them all scaled back.

    There's something to be said for making a simple controller for newbies to get to grips with, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to cater to the lowest common denominator.

  • Pooley #23 4 years ago

    @dan13l "wait, that sounded better in my head..." genuine lol!

    I think today's controllers are too complicated. The number of times I've pressed the wrong button in games, or not known what button to press, is countless.

    However, like Blerk says, this should be down to the developer/designer to implement better controls. I still think the Cube pad is one of the best I've used, purely down to the larger "A" button and the design of the other buttons that surround it. The PS3 and 360 controllers have too many buttons that aren't differentiated enough. In my opinion, of course.

  • Bertie Verified Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net #24 4 years ago

    Fable 2 has emotions. HELLO PEOPLE.

  • Artemis_Matsas #25 4 years ago

    Bloodkult +1

    And... to the Mum and Dad of the 2 year old that was playing around with their I-Phone: Are you serious? letting a 2 year old handle a mobile phone is tottaly irresponsible. Are you trying to give your kid a tumor?

  • skillian #26 4 years ago

    And if they are really congratulating Apple on the one-button mouse, then this guy and I are worlds apart. I've worked with three Macs that use those bastard things, and the first thing I did was go and see the IT guys to get a proper mouse with a right-click minimum. Personally I like back/forward buttons too, and a clickable scroll wheel.
    Edited by skillian at 26/02/08 @ 14:52

  • Markusdragon #27 4 years ago

    I think that the next generation will probably have half-a-ds as a controller, thus allowing high interactivity but context-sensitive control options.

  • login_name #28 4 years ago

    I've seen a two year old use his hands to eat soup, does that mean spoons are too complicated?

  • djed #29 4 years ago

    very few things are as satisfying as internalizing a complicated yet well-crafted control mechanism.

    as opposed to figuring out how to hold the sixaxis without contracting rsi within the hour (still working on that one, ouch).

  • MightyMouse #30 4 years ago

    The pads are fine, but using multiple button combinations for shortcuts in games is not. Having to memorise fifty different button combinations before you can enjoy a game is epic design failure.

  • GordonCaladan #31 4 years ago

    Right on, paddles FTW.

    [link url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddle_(game_controller)
    ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddle_(gam...[/link]

    I think Molyneux and Cliffy B share the same braincell.

  • spekkeh #32 4 years ago

    Blerk:

    The thing is, people are immediately put off by the ostensible complexity without even trying the controller. That's what Harrison meant with the handgrenade analogy: when pressed into the hand of a nongamer, he'll feel overwhelmed and wants to get rid of it as quickly as possible. I think Nintendo has proven this to some extent (of course also that we're all gullible sheep for shiny white gadgetry). So I agree with the wiimote example. Not so with the iPhone, which still has a lot of buttons, only with pictograms on them. Kids are just not that scared about technology.

  • firefly #33 4 years ago

    Lots of buttons isn't the problem - it's the fact that the most obvious functions change from one button to another depending on what game you're playing (or indeed where your console is from).

    Take confirming something in the menu. For years we used A, and that made sense. Then Sony came along and decided to do away with letters on their controllers. In Japan the circle button was the confirm button (which also made sense because it was in the same place as A. Except for some reason their western brances decided that X made more sense - but neglected to tell this to the folks localising games for a while. Square-Enix eventually got the message (I seem to remember hearing that after FFVII and FF Tactics they were told they had to switch the buttons around) but still nobody's mentioned this to Konami and even now I can't play a MGS game without getting frustrated with seemingly basic menu functions. Also Microsoft swapped their A and B buttons around from their place on Nintendo controllers.

    With the PS3, PSP, Xbox 360 and DS all featuring diamond configurations (and the Wii classic controller for that matter) it's about time we had a universal standard on which button is confirm and which is cancel.

  • Sir_TimAlot #34 4 years ago

    This justs seems a little subjective, that the controllers have too many buttons for the kind of games they wanna make, a controller should be designed for the majority, maybe if they cared that much they could release there games with custom peripherials i.e Steel battalion except the complete opposite!

  • Madafunkola #35 4 years ago

    Yes the Wiimote is a greatly intuative control method, but limited. That is why you have to add another component (nunchuck) for anything more complicated than bowling. And I am yet to play a game on the Wii where you need a range of controls all at once, a flight sim for example - hell, even a trad FPS would be confusing to control, even with a nunchuck...
    The modern controller has evolved over time to be probably the most versatile design for LOADs of games, not just the fun wii-type games.

    ALSO - have you tried using an iPhone whilst walking, the lack of profile on the "buttons" means you have to concentrate on it, hardly see that technology translating to joypads too soon.

  • SBfistfun #36 4 years ago

    I tell you what, why not make games just run in demo mode all the way through to the end, then you can just sit back and watch.

    Bellends. If you can't be bothered to learn how to use a controller (or video recorder/dvd whatever) then do something else.

    If Apple brought out a dog shit with their logo on it and had a bunch of cool people jumping round on screen looking like they've just won the fucking lottery (cunts), it would still sell.

    /assembles rifle

  • SuperCoolEskimo #37 4 years ago

    I see their argument, but having also seen how the simplified Wiimote ruined Metroid Prime 3 for me, I must disagree.

    If Nintendo were to release an alternative old school controller alongside the Wiimote for traditional style play, everyone wins.

  • Kyle #38 4 years ago

    Phil Harrison's new initiative to bring Atari back into the mainstream - hire two year-olds: confirmed.

  • PlugMonkey #39 4 years ago

    They're both right, obviously. The Xbox 360 pad I'm looking at frequently requires me to co-ordinate the movements of 2 sticks, 2 triggers, a d-pad and 8 buttons. The car I drive requires me to co-ordinate the movement of one wheel, 3 pedals, one stick and 2 levers.

    The latter I learned to do with 3 months of professional tuition. The former, people are apparently just expected to have an innate gift for.

    'hand somebody a controller..'

    define 'somebody'

    The somebody in this case is my friend, Eleanor. To convince her to try Wii Sports tennis at a party we had to hide her glass of wine. When we gave her the controller, the first thing she did was to ask (with a deep sigh) "So, what are the buttons?". Once she found out there were no buttons, she loved it.

    I grew up with games with one button and built up my skills from there. People in that position seem to forget how complicated a game controller really is if you've never tried to use one before. Easily as complicated as the controls for a car.
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 26/02/08 @ 15:44

  • Pedrolot #40 4 years ago

    I cant stand the 360 controller.

    The N64 controler was the best in my books..

  • smelly #41 4 years ago

    >What exactly is he saying Apple innovated?

    Not sure. But remember apple DID invent the mouse.



    Besides everyone is going to be jumping on the "make controllers simple" bandwagon now the wii is dead popular.

  • Calgon #42 4 years ago

    I didnt like the N64 controller horrible analogue stick on it even if you found one that worked(Nintendo made something not very reliable/built to last*shock*) and it wasnt all that comfortable either, but for its time it was different enough to stand out atleast.

    360 controller is better than the Playstation one and the gamecubes too, but its pointless arguing about something like that.

  • Calgon #43 4 years ago

    Do we want them over simplified? Easy to use and over simplified arent the same thing in my book, do they want to do away with any depth to the control mechanisms of games? Where will the reward come from then if theres not much to master? How can you feel like you won/acheived anything by pushing one button?
    Edited by Calgon at 26/02/08 @ 16:02

  • knocker #44 4 years ago

    It's like 'Defender' never happened.

    Agree with the gamecube love.

  • Muddtallica #45 4 years ago

    Calgon: Actually, I still haven't found an analogue that I like more than the N64's; I just found that the level of resistance it gave, as well as its central position ahead of your thumb, made analogue movements extremely precise and deliberate. I can't think of a stick that I've found easier to gently tilt, for example...my main complaint about it is, like you said, that it wasn't all that durable, becoming loose and wobbly after a few months...

    To take your other point, of course "over-simplification" is undesirable, because that inherently suggests you're taking it too far. Streamlining controls and making them more intuitive, however, is something that's desirable, as long as it doesn't take away the depth of functionality that we're already used to. Touch screen devices like iPhone and DS are good examples of this, I feel; Wii errs a little far towards simplification for me, but it's a decent start for the concept as applied to home consoles.
    Edited by Muddtallica at 26/02/08 @ 16:07

  • jonsaan #46 4 years ago

    Utter bullshit. My 2 year old can find his way round a 360 controller. Spot the devs who want to develop shovelware for the Wii.

  • wobbly_Bob #47 4 years ago

    I think this is nonsense.

    Traditional controllers are freaky to those that don't play games and never will play games. When I mean games, I don't include casual games. I mean "proper" games. The WII userbase, generally, are non-games. It's a whole 'nother thing. Those that do like games or could become interested in playing games have no problem with the traditional controller.

    Saying, let's make controllers simple because it scares non-gamers is like saying "hey let's make boats simpler because all those ropes and stuff put people off boating." IF I was interested in boating then I wouldn't be put off because I'm interested. The same goes with every single hobby out there. If you're interested in the hobby then you will learn what's needed. Those that are not interested will look at it and go " looks too complicated - I can't be arsed."

    I think somebody made a good point when they said games always used to have a few games and there wasn't this big mass of people rushing to play them. Gamers like gamers and they like the controllers the way they are. Non gamers don't and they won't like the controllers. That. Simple.

  • Calgon #48 4 years ago

    Muddtallica Id have to disagree with that, sensitivity can be tweaked in most games and using two sticks is more precise if you think about it or atleast more comfortable(less strain on your thumb joints this way) I think that was the main complaint I have, it just never felt comfortable to me being in the center like that, so how could it feel precise to me then?

    A good input device should be atleast comforable enough for you eventually not notice it where it feels natural, this is along the lines of where Nintendo were coming from with the Wii controller but as I say some of what has been said is a step too far in the wrong direction if you read it closely.
    Edited by Calgon at 26/02/08 @ 16:16

  • Waffleaber #49 4 years ago

    Mentalist(air) He obviously forgot they made this one then

  • bad09 #50 4 years ago

    @Waffleaber

    Ha ha! Worst pad EVER!

  • grantc7 #51 4 years ago

    I think this is another example of the industry leaning more and more towards to the casual market.Controllers I suppose can be compared to driving a car, something which becomes second nature after a while even though it may seem complicated to begin with.

  • L42yB #52 4 years ago

    Game Controllers are fine. They are trying to expand the market and make the whole thing more "palletable" for the "average consumer". They falsely assume that everyone else out there not currently interested in games is actually put off by the "really complex controllers" rather than the fact that they simply don't like video games...

    I don't think the "potential" market is as big as they think it is/want it to be.

    /Hopes smelly was joking about the "apple invented the mouse" comment...

  • Darren #53 4 years ago

    All game controllers are complex because of how we have to use them to interact with a game. Even the Wii's remote isn't instinctive if you've never played a game before as you have the main controller with a D-pad, A, B, +, -, 1 and 2 buttons plus the Nunchuk with its C and Z buttons and an analogue stick. Games that only use the motion-sensing can be complex, say, if you have to use the other buttons beside the A and B ones. I found this out while explaining to family how to play Tiger Woods on the Wii. All the motion-sensing does is replace one of the analogue sticks, it doesn't remove all those terribly complex buttons. It would be as easy to explain how to play Tiger Woods on the 360 with a standard controller really. The complexity only comes from knowing what button does what and that is exactly the same for the Wii as it is for the 360. Swinging a controller as a club or racquet is just more fun, that's all.

    In some ways, Nintendo's attempts to streamline the Wii's controller has meant that some games don't play as well with it - the lack of a second analogue stick for camera control being a good example and the shape of the Wiimote itself can make using some of the buttons a right royal pain - and so there's a need for the Classic Controller or GameCube pad to make up for its shortcomings.

  • jonsaan #54 4 years ago

    Wires are bad. So endeth the lesson. Nintendo should be severley slapped for bringing them back into my lounge.

  • Katsumoto #55 4 years ago

    "Fuck the n00bs. I want more buttons, the more the better. ."

    The keyboard is the ultimate controller, I agree. I especially recommend X-3: The Threat. I think that uses every single button.

  • agparrot #56 4 years ago

    Shouldn't the title be something more like...

    'Harrison and Molyneux are too simple'?

    or

    'Harrison and Molyneux are too old to play proper games'?

    If they choose to play Wii Sports, fair enough, but don't come round here telling me my 360 pad is too complicated, because it isn't. Nor the dualshock. They are both pretty much instinctive and fine. Don't. Mess. With. Them.

    Am a little disappointed that this is Phil's first foray into public announcements post-Sony.

    4/10 - could do better.

  • JayPee #57 4 years ago

    What a couple of tards.
    The control of the thing is half the fun. Take away that control and leave it to a (usually poorly implemented) software contextual control system, and you take away fun and add frustration.

    People who aren't used to gaming should play simpler games. People who are used to gaming shouldn't be dumbed-down to.

    Fable 2 could end up being balls at this rate. Peter, if you want to make a simple game then fine. Fable 2 is A SEQUEL to a franchise. Evolve it, don't fuck it up.

  • Lutz #58 4 years ago

    Erm... no.

    Quite frankly we need more buttons on the controllers.

    Take the 360 pad, sort out the d-pad, put 6 buttons on the face instead of 4, replace start with another button (Do we need a button to start now?) and put a button on the underside of each hand grip. After all your ring figner and piky fingers do nothing.

  • Nylkran #59 4 years ago

    God, am I having a laugh with the comments in this post, a lot of the people that called Harrison and Molyneux, geniuses in other threads when they were talking about LBP or Fable 2, now calling then idiots.

    You know Nintendo must be on to something with the Wiimote, only something truly revolutionary would cause this amount of fear.

  • T4RG4 #60 4 years ago

    It's a short term view.

    I don't see there being a problem with designing a game which can be controlled with a couple of buttons, and to have advanced functions on the others.

    An expert should be able to pass the controller to the newbie and for them to be able to 'move around and play' without visiting any settings screens. What is all this one button shit anyway.

    Thing is, a lot of kids can pick up a controller and quickly get used to handling the many buttons. People are referring to casual gamers all the time, what the really mean is 'your mum and dad' and its sad to say, but those people wont be here forever. Those growing up now wont have such a hard time using game controllers... maybe.

  • Feanor #61 4 years ago

    "Of-course there's too many buttons on todays controllers - that's a fact."

    It's just your opinion, nothing more. Some of my favourite games (like PES) have needed four face buttons and four shoulder buttons and wouldn't be nearly as much fun without them.

  • PlugMonkey #62 4 years ago

    Traditional controllers are freaky to those that don't play games and never will play games.

    And they never will play games because the controller is too complicated to a new user...

    They falsely assume that everyone else out there not currently interested in games is actually put off by the "really complex controllers" rather than the fact that they simply don't like video games...

    No, they correctly assume that some people out there not currently interested in games is actually put off by the "really complex controllers" rather than the fact that they simply don't like video games...

    God, people on these forums don't half over-react to people making perfectly reasonable and sensible statements. The sky's falling in! The SKY IS FALLING IN!!!

  • skillian #63 4 years ago

    I think generally if a person is put off by a "complex controller", they'll likely be put off by a "really complex" game too. So let these people play Peggle with just a mouse or Wii Sports by just waving their arm, but those same people aren't likely to be playing Supreme Commander with those controls any time soon.

    Horses for courses and all that, what's right for one thing isn't necessarily right for another. Which could probably be applied to every slightly toasty comments thread on this website.

  • L42yB #64 4 years ago

    @PlugMonkey -

    Some people maybe... I was generalising, no need to be so picky ;p

    But overall not very many people (IMO). Read my whole post and you shud understand what I was saying...

  • Nithron #65 4 years ago

    My dad just picked up the generic PC controlpad I gave him and started playing Doom more or less immediately. He's 50.

    Too complicated my right nad.

  • mooseman721 #66 4 years ago

    I agree, if you were for example, a fuckwit, a video game controller might seem complicated. I personally don't care if granny cant play, kids grow up using these things. Most people over the age of 25 are able to use one now.

  • ColdShoulder #67 4 years ago

    I'm gutted that I've got to admit to agreeing with two of my most hated people in the industry. I hate how many buttons the 360 and PS(whatever) has. I know they don't need to be used all the time, but they encourage lazy game design and plain and simple put off noobs from playing games. Less buttons please and lets get people making intuituive control systems again.

    + For all those who reckon 360 pads are spot on you're wrong, the D-pad is fucking gash.

  • Jac #68 4 years ago

    I wonder about developers sometimes. Shigeru Miyamoto was spouting the same nonsense a while back. The industry is obsessed with making games accessible for everyone in order to make more revenue but they surely risk alienating the 'hardcore' who actually have the mental capacity to use a controller with more than one button.

    I look forward to fable 2 then which will no doubt only ustilise the A button in every single situation making it far more fun than these ridiculous games that use other buttons as well.

  • smelly #69 4 years ago

    >I think they're both idiots.

    Come back when you've made as much money out of games as they have and your opinion is valid..

  • smelly #70 4 years ago

    @L42yb

    "/Hopes smelly was joking about the "apple invented the mouse" comment..."


    Yes and no.

    They were the first company to use the mouse commercially with any degree of success, and pretty much invented the use of a gui for computer control.

  • NegativeZero #71 4 years ago

    @smelly:
    Not sure. But remember apple DID invent the mouse.

    No they didn't. The mouse was invented by Douglas Englebart at Stanford in 1963. 14 years before Apple were founded. Jobs would have been eight, and Woz would have been 13. They were visionary and talented, but not that talented.

    They also didn't invent the touchscreen - that's been around since the early 70s - or the multi-touch screen, which has had an extremely long genesis with a lot of research by a huge number of groups going back to the 80s. Microsoft have actually contributed a lot more research into the state of the art than Apple.


    Personally, I have no idea what they're talking about. My first 'gaming interface' was a keyboard and mouse when I was two years old and I had no problems. I think it really comes down to appropriate controllers for appropriate games, and generally speaking a gamepad isn't that daunting for a lot of people. For those that it is, the Wii is proving to be an excellent gateway. As is, I found recently, Guitar Hero's controllers - I set my copy up at a party a while back and the number of non-gamers who gave it a go and picked it up within a few minutes was impressive.

    Either way, it's not really the controller that's the problem, it's the way that the game interfaces with it.

  • ColdShoulder #72 4 years ago

    JSPOOLE>

    I think you're missing the point. It's not about dumbing down the games, it's about dumb controller configurations where more game features = more buttons to control them. It shouldn't be like that. Controls should be slick, intuitive and not on your mind when playing else risk breaking the illusion and ruining the experience together.

    Your comparison to the dictionary is utter crap. Yes there are tons of words in the dictionary but how many of them do most of us use? I see you've taken to adding your own... Mouses for instance?

  • Erenthal #73 4 years ago

    Reading comprehension and being able to controll a pad is obviously not related on this forum.

    Now, what they are saying is that for a long time now developers have been fucking lazy, and relying simply on mapping as many functions on to as many buttons as they can because they think that by doing so they are somehow making the game "deep", "complex" or "innovative." This is simply not true.

    What they argue for is that we must strive for a mindset among developers where the goal always is to make the controls as intuitive and non-complicated as the intended function allows. By doing this, we can avoid the dreaded "button-creep".

    Seriously, there have been fantastically complex and innovative games for the SNES, the NES, Sega and so on. These consoles had 2, 3, 4 buttons. That is enough if you have a well-though out, context-sensitive scheme. Strive for simplicity, because simplicity is NOT stupidity, simplicity is elegance and a mind less spent on remembering buttons and more spent on enjoying the game.

  • Erenthal #74 4 years ago

    @JSPOOLE

    Stunning retort there. Perhaps you have heard of a method called "providing arguments backing up your statement"? No? Didn't think so, I don't think they teach that until at least 2nd grade.

    Now, if you want to give it another shot, feel free. It's really quite easy when you get the gist of it. Just provide an argument based on logic, not insults, that refutes the points that you thought I got wrong.

  • Muddtallica #75 4 years ago

    Erenthal: Very well put. A good point of comparison, I find, is the evolution of the command options panel on the old LucasArts point-and-click games. Maniac Mansion, for example gave you a fiddly, messy fifteen different command options, including specific commands for "Read", "Fix", "Turn On" and, most cumbersomely, "What Is"; later titles like Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis moved forward by simplifying the panel down to nine commands, which, thanks to the game engine's improved sense of intuition and context recognition, allowed for a smoother, more streamlined play experience without any need for compromise. Heck, later games like Curse of Monkey Island and Grim Fandango went even further, whittling the commands down to three or even two (essentially, either "Examine" and "Interact", with "Pick Up" kind of subsidiary) without hurting the fundamentals of the game design. That's the essence of intelligent control simplification; making three buttons do the job of fifteen, and making them do them far more seamlessly and intuitively.

    When people talk about "simplifying" controls, I don't think they mean it in terms of taking gameplay options away, or denying the player possibilities; it's more about removing the barriers between the player and accessing those options and possibilities within the game world...

  • Erenthal #76 4 years ago

    @JSPOOLE

    See, that wasn't that hard was it? Now you've used logic and arguments to make your case. Don't you just feel all civilized and cozy right now? Oh damn, I sounded like a pretentious twat now, didn't I?

    Oh well. First off, even though I usually try to discount ad hominem attacks, I will state for the record that I do not consider myself a casual player. I enjoy my 360 and my FPS's, and I enjoy my complex strategy-games on the PC.

    Now then. I do concede the point that we might very well be operating on two very different definitions of the word "challenge" or "gameplay" here. First off, one could consider these two, or the amalgam of concepts which they represent, a direct extension of the diffuculty and complexity bestowed upon them by the controls. In laymans terms, the challenge and point of a game is to master the controls, and learn the various "combos" or other equivalent control-related elements. This approach I would dub the "Mechanical/Technical External Challenge". The approach is certainly a valid one, and one that harkens back to the old days of arcade-games and their heirs.

    The second method of approaching a game is no more complex than the first, but perhaps unfamiliar. This method involves seeing the "internal" challenges of the game (such as puzzles, tactical decisions, leveling up choices and so forth in a myriad of different ways), and the overcoming of them. In this case, controls that are overly complex becomes a hindrance rather than an added enjoyable challenge. This approach is the "Contexual Internal Challenge."

    A game that mainly relies on pure mechanical skill and mastery of controls (such as a fast-paced shooter, or a fighting-game) is a very different cup of tea compared to a game that relies on brain-power, decision-making and tactical sense. The first type is well served by a control-system with depth and choices. The second needs a simple and effective system that minimizes hassle. Both are of course, as I and the developers in the article argue, also well served of a system where controls are intuitive and well-designed.

    Combat Mission on the PC is an incredibly complex strategy game, but can be played with the sole use of the two mouse-buttons. Does that make it a worse game than (as mentioned) X3 where 99% of the keyboard (and a joystick) is used? Advance Wars on the DS is a fine, fine game that is played with only a stylus. Poor design? Stupid gameplay? Simplicity is not stupid, and I must stress this point. Simplicity means that if one button can do the job, don't use two. I must give props to Gears of War, for having a really excellent control-system in this vein.

    @Muddtallica:

    Excellent examples, and I fully agree. The genre was greatly served by this. I remember Blade Runner (Adventure game, came 1997) only used the mouse, but was a deep, satisfying adventure game.
    Edited by Erenthal at 27/02/08 @ 00:52

  • djed #77 4 years ago

    Quickly, someone hide the alphabet!

  • Triggerhappytel #78 4 years ago

    So, who's Phil going to work for - Nintendo or Apple?!

    I might even put a sneaky bet on EA...


    /Has suspicions they are working on a console.

  • Lokkee #79 4 years ago

    Harrisson had more than a word to say during the PS3 controller designing phase... How come he didn't point it out back then? too busy bullshiting people about the rumbling device issue...
    Back then I clearly remember him saying that PS2 controllers were just perfect. On top of that he wanted us to browse the net with a paddle... How clever.
    Marketting bullshit once more. That was a trademark of Harrisson's contribution to Sony's P.R.
    An easy criticism coming much too late to be constructive or relevant:Given your role at Sony that is in good part your fault and responsability Phil.
    Edited by Lokkee at 27/02/08 @ 09:54

  • Andy247 #80 4 years ago

    That's right, I forgot that Apple invented the touch screen... idiot.

  • the_inchworm #81 4 years ago

    This is all such horseshit. Complex controllers enable complex interaction with a game. Yes, this interaction can be achieved with fewer buttons, but that often engenders compromise, and in most games you are required to react quickly, so compromise is rightly frowned upon.

    Phil has started Sony bashing now, and PM has always been outspoken. If you want an elegant, simple control scheme, then go right ahead and good luck to you. Sometimes, like when I eye up SFIV on my 360, I lament that I don't have *more* buttons to enable me to play it properly.

    Grrrrr, this annoys me.

  • IronCladChicken #82 4 years ago

    @L42yb
    "/Hopes smelly was joking about the "apple invented the mouse" comment..."

    Noo they didn’t - really, they didn’t.

    @smelly
    > They were the first company to use the mouse commercially
    Noo they weren’t - really, they weren’t :)

    > and pretty much invented the use of a gui for computer control.
    Noo they didn’t - really, they didn’t
    They stole the GUI/WIMP from Xerox Parc - It’s a pretty infamous tech story (especially after Apple tried to sue M$)
    Edited by IronCladChicken at 27/02/08 @ 13:03

  • BobsUncle #83 4 years ago

    two years olds are stupid.

  • Calgon #84 4 years ago

    someone will sit down to play Fable 2 who has never played a game before and they can play with someone who's played games the whole of their lives.

    "I wish there wasn't so many buttons on the controller. You have to approach that in design terms by thinking you've only got one button."


    For some games that will work but dont tell me it wouldnt be stupid or atleast dull for a competitive multiplayer game, thered be little to master, no depth and little reward for someone whos played games for a long time. Expand the market and let it grow by all means but theres a real danger they will forget those who've kept this industry going all these years the way some are talking, if they turn around and say "well youve had your time we dont care what you want really because the casual markets bigger now" then I think alot of the hardcores will lose interest in said platforms in the end and that could be crippling as they are some of the biggest spenders.
    Edited by Calgon at 27/02/08 @ 17:44

  • Feanor #85 4 years ago

    How many games are there with multiple important functions crammed onto one button, and yet we're supposed to believe controllers have too many buttons? Ridiculous.

  • Grayvern #86 4 years ago

    Simplicity is easily achieved in strategy games with a mouse, however with an fps on the PC ask someone with extra mouse buttons how much easier life can become.

    Theres nothing wrong with complexity, its only the older generation that have trouble with controllers anyway ive seen 5 year olds playing PS2 games with the controller with ease.

  • dryden555 #87 4 years ago

    the game industry is convinced that bringing "newcomers" into gaming is the key to massive profits. hence this silly argument that controllers are too complicated and should be aimed at 2 years olds. it is an idiotic argument.