Persistantthug
Newcomer
What happened to custom controls?
- Thread starter fearsomepirate
- Start date
Persistantthug
Newcomer
I've been wondering about this for a few years.
So now that I've read through this topic/post,
I think the overall general consensus here seems to be that the reason we no longer have button mapping in our games is because most developers are rude, inconsiderate, and lazy......basically.
So now that I've read through this topic/post,
I think the overall general consensus here seems to be that the reason we no longer have button mapping in our games is because most developers are rude, inconsiderate, and lazy......basically.
Much easier I'd say. F1 2010 lets you remap every single button, for instance. FIFA 11 comes to mind too. Along with Street Fighter 2, Blazblue, Marvel vs Capcom 2, etc etc.
I would like to play FPSs mapping the buttons like they are mapped in BF3 or Call of Juarez by default. I played the new Counter Strike and it was a boon when I found out I could remap the buttons at will, matching the buttons of similar games I am familiar with.
It makes a big difference. They say it's harder to teach an old dog new tricks, and when I get older I expect I will grow tired of relearning every single game. Sometimes it isn't even easy nowadays....
In this case, I think so yes ... but go ahead, try and change my mind. Give me a reason why a developer would ever want to hard code a key in game which already uses a shim API with a configuration file for keymapping which doesn't come down to him being an idiot.
scooby_dooby
Legend
UI considerations?ie Artwork for tutorial screens, on-screen color coded buttons (ala Fable), etc etc.
Not to mention the actual UI work required in to implement the "Key Mapping" screen and test it which likely involves multiple teams to coordinate. Seems like one of those things that is dead easy in code, but the UI overhead is what makes it hard...
The obvious solution there is to soft-code the references, so instead of displaying "Button X graphic", you display "Jump button graphic" and load it via reference.
I hate UI work, so I can understand that. But it's not a massive thing really (unless I'm really missing something!), and most importantly lots of games had already implemented it, and then stopped. It hasn't become more expensive - devs have just decided not to support it. That's why it really should be on the OS level IMO. Control mapping requires common functions that are a good fit for the system APIs.
If it takes multiple teams to coordinate the kind of UI seen in the key-mapping screens in games like Timesplitters 2 and Killzone 1, then the problem is the company's development structure.
I wouldn't try and claim it's difficult to code, it's an additional test burden, and notably the way that controller buttons are depicted falls under TRC's and can be a pain.
But I don't think any of those are blockers, I think the issue is if you run any additional options by focus groups they test poorly. People play with options and the more you have the more they tend to vacillate and worry that they are not configuring things correctly. For example the number of arguments I've seen over not just having difficulty settings, but what they should be called is just plain stupid.
I think there is a second issue where designers do not want to offer controller options, they have a vision of how the game will be played, I know I've worked on games where a lot of thought was put into the types of motion your hands were doing while using the controller to do various things in game.
But I don't think any of those are blockers, I think the issue is if you run any additional options by focus groups they test poorly. People play with options and the more you have the more they tend to vacillate and worry that they are not configuring things correctly. For example the number of arguments I've seen over not just having difficulty settings, but what they should be called is just plain stupid.
I think there is a second issue where designers do not want to offer controller options, they have a vision of how the game will be played, I know I've worked on games where a lot of thought was put into the types of motion your hands were doing while using the controller to do various things in game.
See, I have a huge problem with the "But I don't want you to play the game that way" attitude. This is especially a problem when developers insist on their own unique control scheme in a familiar genre. When I move from one FPS to another, I want to be able to have familiar functions like crouch, jump, switch weapons, melee, aim, etc to all be on the same buttons.
Like recently, I've been rotating among Borderlands, BF:BC2, and CoD:WaW. None of the presets allow me to put the same basic functions on the same buttons across all games, and as a result, I make a lot of basic control errors when I switch from one game to the other. I don't think, "Wow, your vision for mapping crouch to R3 is so compelling!" I think, "Dammit, I just died again because I crouched when I meant to melee."
Honestly if my designer didn't have a vision for how the game should be played and stand strongly behind it, I'd want a new designer.
Perhaps as a parallel I would never offer the option to play my game with additional AA at half the frame rate on a console, because it changes the game. I would offer quality options on PC because I can't evaluate the end user experience.
Although some console games have had programmable controls going back to SNES/Genesis (Street fighter being the one I remember), it hasn't been typical and Miyamoto has come out before now and said he'd never provide the option.
I think a lot of this is the heavy emphasis we've seen on first person shooters on console in the 360/PS3 timeframe, I think it draws a lot of comparisons to the configurability of PC.
Perhaps as a parallel I would never offer the option to play my game with additional AA at half the frame rate on a console, because it changes the game. I would offer quality options on PC because I can't evaluate the end user experience.
Although some console games have had programmable controls going back to SNES/Genesis (Street fighter being the one I remember), it hasn't been typical and Miyamoto has come out before now and said he'd never provide the option.
I think a lot of this is the heavy emphasis we've seen on first person shooters on console in the 360/PS3 timeframe, I think it draws a lot of comparisons to the configurability of PC.
What is the point of playing new games then? It seems you just want to play the same game.....
What is the point of making new games if they all have the same mechanics?
So LBP plays like Mario because it uses left/right and a jump button? The controls don't make the game. All of us who have switched from one game to another similar game and muddled up the controls, throwing grenades when we want to duck, or crouching when we want to knife someone, or using a spell when we meant to pick up the potion, would appreciate an optional simplification of the transition between games. We have somewhat standardised interfaces on many PC programs, and when someone does do something differently the adaptation period is just a frustration. Using office apps on Android is a PITA because the Windows standard CTRL codes aren't implemented. When having crouch on L3 and melee on R2 or vice versa doesn't make any real difference to the gameplay, there's no particular reason to want designers to have a clear vision as to which button does what, and no reason not to allow users to switch control placement.
If a new kind of control, buttons mapping has a way of making games comfortable to play, (assuming you get the GOOD games) then I am up for it.
I didn't mean to play the same game, but similar mappings for similar games. If you play FPSs and you zoom with a different button in let's say 5 games, you end up totally confused and you can feel clumsy.
Which in turn makes it feel like a different kind of fun compared to what you were used to, especially if you were accustomed to a particular game more than any other and have to start re-learning every single control from scratch when the camera doesn't differ much. :/ Halo standardized the controls for example, or so they say.
So you can grab stuff in the Mario games? Which Mario do you mean btw, SMW or the NSMB?
And having crouch on either L3 or R2 is a pretty big difference. If you have it on L3 you can not crouch and move at the same time (assuming you move your character with the left stick). Pretty big difference, don't you think?
If there are different game mechanics in the game it will probably require different control methods and emphasis. If it has the same game mechanics it can have the same controls.
You miss the point. You claim fearsomepirate wants every game to be the same because he wants control continuity between different titles. Just having the same control mappings doesn't make the games the same, any more than LBP is like Mario (or any other platformer) because they have the same control mappings.
It's irrelevant. Firstly, I don't know any games that have crouch as anything other than a toggle but even if they do, it's down to the user to choose. If the designers map crouch to R2 because they want moving while crouching, and the player chooses instead to map it to L3 where it doesn't work that well, that's the user's issue. The designers can still design around their preferred layout, but customisable controls means users expressing a preference can vary it. The only exception would be analogue control where mapping throttle to R3 or suchlike wouldn't make sense, so that'd have to be factored into the control management. But as custom controls could be implemented in a universal, portable library, a little effort to make it cover all contingencies would be prudent.
Sorry forgot I was on the console forum for a moment there, in the original post he replied to I did mention PC games ... for which all this is pretty much irrelevant, since generally they already allow key remapping in the first place (even when they have static tutorial artwork). My point is that even though they have the support in the game for it, some developers PERSIST in doing it wrong ...
So yeah, apparently for modern developers it would be a hard thing to get right.
This is an interesting topic of discussion.
Our latest console game (Trials Evolution) is based on user created content. We have a complex visual scripting system, that allows the players to basically create anything they want inside the game. Players have for example created first person shooters, 2d adventure games and side scrollers. And some have even had time to create almost exact 1:1 replicas of original Mario Bros, Pacman, Missile Command, Snake (Nokia) and Tetris games. There's even a drum machine that lets you record your own drum lines and send them to online leaderboards (for others to listen to).
We allow level creators (players themselves) to map Xbox 360 controller buttons freely in their own game logic. Some games need lots of buttons to work properly, so we do not limit it in any way.
There was a discussion thread like this one on our forums as well. Players were asking why we do not allow them to remap the game controls. The problem in our case is that we do not know what the buttons will do in all the user created games. We have no clue at all. Remapping the controls might break some games (or at least make them very difficult to play). If we allowed custom control mappings, the question becomes: Does a single custom control layout do you any good? The answer is no, since it will only help you with some games, and make some games harder to play (since controls between games can be radically different). So basically you would need a separate custom control mapping for each game/level, and we have over 200.000 user created levels. That's not an easy problem to solve elegantly (without boring the player to death). And that's why we respect the button layout that the level/game creator has chosen for his level/game (and offer no customized control options). Players can however implement alternative custom controls options inside the games/level they have created. For example most user created first person shooters nowadays seem to use analog stick pressing to invert the y-axis of that stick.
Our latest console game (Trials Evolution) is based on user created content. We have a complex visual scripting system, that allows the players to basically create anything they want inside the game. Players have for example created first person shooters, 2d adventure games and side scrollers. And some have even had time to create almost exact 1:1 replicas of original Mario Bros, Pacman, Missile Command, Snake (Nokia) and Tetris games. There's even a drum machine that lets you record your own drum lines and send them to online leaderboards (for others to listen to).
We allow level creators (players themselves) to map Xbox 360 controller buttons freely in their own game logic. Some games need lots of buttons to work properly, so we do not limit it in any way.
There was a discussion thread like this one on our forums as well. Players were asking why we do not allow them to remap the game controls. The problem in our case is that we do not know what the buttons will do in all the user created games. We have no clue at all. Remapping the controls might break some games (or at least make them very difficult to play). If we allowed custom control mappings, the question becomes: Does a single custom control layout do you any good? The answer is no, since it will only help you with some games, and make some games harder to play (since controls between games can be radically different). So basically you would need a separate custom control mapping for each game/level, and we have over 200.000 user created levels. That's not an easy problem to solve elegantly (without boring the player to death). And that's why we respect the button layout that the level/game creator has chosen for his level/game (and offer no customized control options). Players can however implement alternative custom controls options inside the games/level they have created. For example most user created first person shooters nowadays seem to use analog stick pressing to invert the y-axis of that stick.
I think I get the point. A part of this thread is complaints like "Why do I have to learn new controls for new game? It would be easier for me if I could set the controls to be the same/very similar to other games I have played."
I think that games' control methods should enable and emphasize the actions in the game. If the actions or the relations between actions (for example, the importance of melee combat in a FPS) differ, the control system and layout should reflect that.
And the 2D Mario games (that I have played) and LBP have very different controls. You can not say that they have different control MAPPINGS because they have different controls and control very differently (within their genre).
