What is "consolisation" and why does it exist? Or Simulated Skill v Player Skill - by SubJeff
june gloom on 5/2/2011 at 09:33
So that's what the little slot on the bottom of my 360 controller is for.
Papy on 5/2/2011 at 13:40
Quote Posted by Dresden
Are you insinuating that those were good controllers that people wanted to keep in the first place?
As Renzatic said, that's not what I was insinuating. Having said that, although I agree the intellivision and the regular colecovision controllers were quite painful to use, the super action controller for the colecovision was kind of good (except for the fact their life expectancy was extremely short). Also,I think the NES controller was worse than even the intellivision controller.
As for modern controllers, People are used to them, the same way we were used to the square keypad kind of controllers, but although they are not as painful to use as older controllers, I certainly wouldn't rate them as "good". I do find the X-Box controller awkward to use.
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
So in this environment, when console makers were trying to ride the wave and make "computery" games, many of them responded by slapping a little keyboard onto their controllers. Another advantage of keypads is that more buttons allows game creators to write simpler UI code... just assign functions directly to buttons, instead of having to code up a menu. Back when 8K was considered a huge amount of ROM, this sort of space savings could make or break a game's ROM footprint.
I'm not so sure keypad controllers had anything to do with the computer wave (the Intellivision was made before computers became popular), nor with a need to simplify the UI code. I'm guessing the main reason is because cycling through all games variations one after another (like with the 2600) or cycling through numbers was annoying.
Anyway, whatever the motivation behind the choice to have a keypad, the fact is several games for the Intellivision used those buttons, either to enter numbers (like with blackjack and poker) or to enter commands that would not be possible with a menu (Baseball or Sea Battle). Even with a game like Utopia which could work with a menu, the fact that there was direct commands made the game faster. I don't think keypads were an anomaly at all.
Those games which needed more than four buttons were lost with the NES. It's games which adapt to the controller, not the opposite, and games that can't be done simply disappear. My point was that what current games need do not define how future controller will be.
Jason Moyer on 5/2/2011 at 13:45
Speaking of the simplicity of Atari controllers:
Inline Image:
http://www.atariage.com/2600/controllers/con_AtariTouchPad.jpgOf course, I can't remember any other game using it, and it used 5 of the 12 goddamn buttons. I seem to remember there being something similar for the BASIC and Sesame Street cartridges, but I can't remember if they used their own controllers or had overlays for the touch pad.
Chade on 5/2/2011 at 14:06
Quote Posted by Wormrat
No, but it allows for greater complexity, because you can expect the player to react to more things more quickly. It may seem like a "dumb" twitch skill, but complex tactics can arise from the intelligent application of that skill in tricky situations.
Besides, if an FPS doesn't seem intelligent enough for you, just think about a strategy game. You can reasonably throw more menus, options, and commands at the player when the controls are fast and precise.
Yes, you can cram more options into a shorter amount of time. But are these options likely to make the game more intelligent if I am expected to spend less time considering each one? If I am playing a game which requires thought, the bottleneck for actions per minute is generally my brain, not my hand.
Usually, if I require a precise control scheme to do something smart in a fast paced part of a game, the genesis of the idea will have occurred during an earlier lull when I had time to sit back and brainstorm new ways of interacting with the world.
As a general rule of thumb, if a game gives me a continuous range of options, these options will generally only vary over a few dimensions. The enormous number of options just means that some skill will be required to get the exact force/distance/angle/whatever that I want. But if I am off a bit, it will not mean that I have chosen some completely different option in a bewildering sea of complexity. It will just mean that I do 5% less damage, or miss instead of hit. Or maybe I will summon an Orc instead of the Ogre.
If my options vary from flying away into the sunset vs dancing the conga, I will likely be presented with a smaller set to choose from. I will probably not be presented with 500 options all as different as that! It would take me too long to consider each one. If I am presented with 500 options, there will be some regularity to them, so that if option X is too expensive, then Y and Z are automatically excluded too.
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
The only possible context in which this statement is not profoundly retarded would be coming from someone who thinks of games as semi-interactive entertainment and not as GAMES.
"Bah, who needs precise controls? Just let the game aim for me! Where's my beer?!"
1. More straw?
2. Aiming is a fun skill to practice, but not an intelligent one.
3. Your annual check-up is overdue. By at least a year, now I think about it.
EvaUnit02 on 5/2/2011 at 19:04
Quote Posted by dethtoll
So
that's what the little slot on the bottom of my 360 controller is for.
I suspect that you maybe being facetious, but I'll bite regardless. Actually it's reserved mainly to plug in mics/headsets used for online play/voice chat. Anyway the chatpad accessory bombed hard and has since gone OOP.
Quote Posted by Malf
You'da thunk so, wouldn't ya?
You'd have a point if they were used by actual games, but outside of text input, they largely aren't. Their main purpose is for communication (and text input), not for say macros in RTS games.
SubJeff on 5/2/2011 at 22:38
Quote Posted by Wormrat
Okay, but then you're contradicting yourself, because you said that current controllers are "close to being K&M equivalents." So there shouldn't be any need for simplified controls.
Exactly, there shouldn't. It's become part of the ethos, part of player expectation and part of what makes games "kewl". If you can do "cool" stuff easily the masses like it. Lowest common denominator and all that.
And that controller lets you operate all the buttons without ever taking your thumbs off the analog sticks and therefore allows for a greater number of combination presses - even more reason to not dumb down.
Sulphur on 5/2/2011 at 23:17
So you're saying that, by tracing the imaginary evolutionary line from Pong to the PS3/X360, the reason why console games have 'I win' buttons is because the control mechanism from early generations didn't allow for enough world interaction and each successive generation ran with that, leading to consolitis today? That's a pretty big stretch.
I'd post a rundown of PC and console histories and how they influenced each other right from the start, but that'd balloon this post out into an essay. The simple fact is that simpler games always found more of an audience than anything complex. Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake -- compare their sales to Ultima Underworld, System Shock, and Descent. While we pride ourselves on the PC being the platform for more discerning and intelligent gamers, the fact is that those intelligent, complex games are more the exception than the rule even on the PC.
Wolfenstein, Doom, and Quake, the PC's biggest FPSes ever for their respective times, were all ported to the consoles - gamepads suited them just fine. No 'I win' buttons, either.
So I'd blame it less on the restrictions of the gamepad and more on the fact that ever since the beginning of time, the popular view was consoles = kiddie fodder usually (thanks Atari, Nintendo), and PCs = no inherent demographic limitations, so thinking adults could get something more suited for them if they looked in the right places.
Edit: Also, one thing I don't understand is what the exact definition of an 'I win' button is to you. I understand them to be QTEs and literally mashing a button to win instead of you emulating the action playing out on the screen via the controls (that's your player/simulated skill divide), but the popularisation of QTEs is a very recent phenomenon.
SubJeff on 6/2/2011 at 00:45
I agree that it's not a simple linear evolution from Pong to the PS3/Xbox360 but there is a definite trend. Of course simpler games have a greater audience; it's pandering to the lowest common denominator.
This is true of any entertainment medium - film, music, books, games. My issue with it is that before gaming popularity exploded with the 5th and 6th gen consoles I could accept it because of the financial returns. But now that even niche games will appeal to a massive number (even if it isn't a massive proportion) of people it's just lazy and/or greedy to still try to pander to the masses.
An "I win" button is one that you press to carry out a Simulated Skill rather than needing to do a number of things in order to carry out the same action. Using a rope arrow in Thief 1 vs using the grappling hook in Batman Arkham Asylum for example. One requires considerable Player Skill, the other requires almost none.
Papy on 6/2/2011 at 04:30
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I agree that it's not a simple linear evolution from Pong to the PS3/Xbox360 but there is a definite trend.
That "trend" is only a personal perception based on your own evolution. The more you experience video games, the more depth and complexity you need to get the same feeling as you had before. This is true for everything. Music, literature, movies, even mundane things like restaurants... everything is worse than before. Except the truth is it is not.
I'll take a very old game as an example. Back in the 80s, I thought Mission:Impossible for the C64 was a difficult game. But when I played it again on an emulator, I was surprised to find the game as rather easy. I'd still rate it as a good game, but it certainly was not the same experience as before. I could also take Doom as an example. I replayed that game a few years ago and I was extremely surprised to see how easy the game was. Still fun, but with almost no challenge.
I also view current games are dumbed down piece of shit. But when I look objectively back at what gaming was before, I'm forced to acknowledge that the trend is for more difficult and more complex games, not the opposite. The problem is my own evolution was faster than the evolution of video games.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
But now that even niche games will appeal to a massive number (even if it isn't a massive proportion) of people it's just lazy and/or greedy to still try to pander to the masses.
Because of inflation, $50 from 10 years ago is now around 65$. So the question is : would you buy _today_ a game with the same graphics as System Shock 2 for $65? I know I wouldn't. So although a more difficult and complex game could appeal to more people than in 1999, a more difficult and complex game with graphics from 10 years ago and a price tag of $65 would appeal to almost no one. (And don't forget that because of your own evolution, you actually need a game that is even more niche than what System Shock 2 was)
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
An "I win" button is one that you press to carry out a Simulated Skill rather than needing to do a number of things in order to carry out the same action.
Considering games offer now a lot more actions to do than before, what is important is the overall difficulty of the game, not how difficult it is to accomplish one action.
