You'll Love This

[sixrocket]

>"I still think one of the huge barriers is the controller, and even people who played games when it used to be just one big red button and a D-pad can't play games now," the Ubisoft producer patronizingly told OXM. "You have to master face buttons, triggers and they all do different things. So obviously we're never going to get to that really mass-market place where we're touching a really broad audience with our messages with controllers, so Kinect and other more natural ways to interact with games are incredibly important. I think we can go further.

 

http://www.destructoid.com/jade-raymond-controllers-too-complex-to-be-mainstream-231998.phtml

 

 

She describes herself as a hardcore gamer.

[TheMightyEthan]

Computers will never reach a mass audience because keyboards are just too damned complicated. And musical instruments? How the hell can you ever expect them to take off when you have to learn how to move your fingers quickly in various patterns?

[MasterDex]

It's bullshit. Plain and simple. It's comments like this that are fucking up gaming. They're inventing excuses for non-existent problems.

[「Advent Chaos」]

I was terrified of the N64 controller as a kid, I thought it was awesome looking, but was afraid the games would be too complex. Then I sat down and played some Kirby 64, Yoshi's Story and Super Smash Bros. A controller may look uninviting, but it can become such a comfort zone depending on which game you play and their respective control scheme. Now we've got Dualshock 3, the 360 controller and the soon to come "Pro controller" for the Wii U. They're slightly different, but they all provide a familiar feeling of comfort and fun.

 

Actually I think TV controllers are far more uninviting. Get a new TV, a new controller that looks like a mini keyboard with so many keys when really you usually just end up using Channel UP DOWN, Volume - + and the ON button.

[excel_excel]

I can see how controllers visually look complex to those who've never seen one before, but the same could be said of TV remote controls or a phone's keyboard or the layout for a touchscreen game interface with a virtual pad. I get where's she coming from.....kind of....but the PS2 was a mainstream success and that had just as complex a controller as the 360.

[TheMightyEthan]

Well and the thing is we're getting to the point where controllers *aren't* uninviting to most people because more and more adults are now people who have grown up playing video games. Even if this is a problem it's going to go away over the next few decades as those who are uncomfortable with controllers will die because they're old.

[Cyber Rat]

Well and the thing is we're getting to the point where controllers *aren't* uninviting to most people because more and more adults are now people who have grown up playing video games. Even if this is a problem it's going to go away over the next few decades as those who are uncomfortable with controllers will die because they're old.

 

There are still a ton of people of our generation who are intimidated by controllers. You're basically saying that those who don't have a problem with controllers now will grow up and... still not have a problem with controllers

 

Kinect is only visually more inviting to onlookers, because it's easier to explain to someone how your movement has an impact on what's happening on the screen, rather than explaining to them how your motions affect the gamepad, which in turn relays that to the screen. Technically, Kinect still has the actual Kinect device as an intermediary, but as far as casual perception goes, it's one intermediary less.

 

But it boils down to replacing an accurate abstract input device (gamepad) with an inaccurate abstract input device (Kinect).

 

 

Jump to around 2:30 when the demonstration starts. The gestures do not reflect the actual action. It's as abstract as pressing a button to achieve the same effect.

[「Advent Chaos」]

Kinect is only visually more inviting to onlookers, because it's easier to explain to someone how your movement has an impact on what's happening on the screen, rather than explaining to them how your motions affect the gamepad, which in turn relays that to the screen. Technically, Kinect still has the actual Kinect device as an intermediary, but as far as casual perception goes, it's one intermediary less.

 

 

That's totally true! There is a certain simplicity to motion gaming, just look at how successful Wii Sports was when it came to teaching non-gaming people how to play. Sure the games are simplified versions, but you don't really need to know much other than "HEY SEE THAT BALL!? SWING THE REMOTE WAHOO!" I remember the night I got my Wii, my best friends came over for a sleep over and we played the hell out of wii bowling only to find out 3 hours later that you could change the position of your Mii by using the D-pad. Well there's that and we were just kinda dumb that night....

 

Also what would an average/non-gamer person prefer, learning controls by moving your hands and mimicking certain movements or looking at ONE OF THESE GODDAMN THINGS:

 

 

I hate these, they usually appear on a loading screen and you're only given so much time to try and remember what everything does. I mean sure, say if you're playing a shooter the chances of a control scheme from another shooter you've played are going to be similar are still there. Left stick move, Right trigger (R2) probably shoots, move the camera with the right stick and bam. Even so these controller maps can be very confusing to someone who's not familiar with controllers or the game. I think this is a whole different topic though.

[MasterDex]

The gestures do not reflect the actual action. It's as abstract as pressing a button to achieve the same effect.

 

That's why it's a bullshit comment. It's a perception issue rather than an actual hardware issue and perception can be changed in those willing to change it. Most people I've found being intimidated by a controller would be intimidated at learning how to use a multitude of everyday devices. These people are usually stubborn in the regard that they think "I don't know how to use this but I'd rather complain than spend the 5 minutes it would take to learn how." We've all come across people like this - little sisters who squeel "I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PLAY! I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PLAY!" the minute the controller touches their hands or parents/older relatives who say "I don't have the time for this." when you know full well they do.

 

A lot of people are unwilling to put any time or effort into learning something they have no interest in. The only difference a device like Kinect or the Wiimote makes is that they can wiggle around and laugh at themselves but even then, the appeal often quickly lessens because they never had any real desire to play games in the first place. What Jade Raymond is asking for, perhaps unbeknownst to herself, is simplification on a grand scale, as for devices like Kinect or any next generation motion control to be properly integrated and simple enough for the type of person she speaks of, the command sets for games would have to be terribly simplified - the simplification of many FPS control schemes due to the console controller is an example of this on a smaller scale.

 

I don't think I'm over-reacting when I say that listening to this woman's advice on this matter could be damaging to the integrity of gaming as a whole. Simplification and mass appeal doesn't have to be a bad thing but it can be and in this case, would be. It's admirable of Excel to try to see the good-side of the comment but I don't think there is one. At the least, it was a foolish comment but frankly, Jade Raymond should know better if she's as involved in the industry as the media surrounding her would lead us to believe.

 

I hate these, they usually appear on a loading screen and you're only given so much time to try and remember what everything does. I mean sure, say if you're playing a shooter the chances of a control scheme from another shooter you've played are going to be similar are still there. Left stick move, Right trigger (R2) probably shoots, move the camera with the right stick and bam. Even so these controller maps can be very confusing to someone who's not familiar with controllers or the game. I think this is a whole different topic though.

 

I wouldn't blame the controller for that. I'd blame the developers. A good game teaches the user to use the most common controls in the first 5 minutes of playing and everything else over the course of the game. Let's take a game I've been playing a lot lately - Tribes: Ascend. When you first start playing, you're likely to be confused with the plethora of stuff you can do but as you play the game you start to notice different things. It probably goes something like this for the first-time player:

Oh, how do I ski? I press this button. But I'm not going very fast Oh, now I get it, you use hills to build speed. Damn! I just had the flag but that guy shot me and I went flying. Oh, your health regenerates after a while. I wonder if I shoot behind me if I can use this knockback effect to boost myself over this big hill. Now, that's a natural kind of learning but with a good control scheme, a developer can create something that feels natural even if it's a tightly controlled learning experience.

 

Another good example is my personal control scheme for playing Street Fighter IV with your average modern controller. On the 360 controller, this would be B-Low, Y-Medium, LB-High and vice-versa for punches. LT for all punches/all kicks depending on the character and RT for Focus Attacks. It's easy to explain to someone. Kicks are this side, punches are this side, these two buttons do this. It sounds logical and I've found that helps people get rid of the apprehension they might feel when going to play Street Fighter.

 

Cutting a long story short, what I'm saying is that the controller isn't the issue. To lay the blame on it is to ignore where the real problem lies - the game.

 

Sorry for the long post. Kojima's got nothing on me!