StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Mr Bean wrote: However in Consoles its a valid point because less button means less options for certian kinds of games.

Take say Halo, I need a button to shoot
1.

I need a button to switch weapons
2.

I need a button to jump of course
3. Buttons

I need a button for gernades
4. Buttons
Oops! Out of buttons, Guess there will be no Zooming, No Melee attack, No exit to menu.

I made a button layout mock up to show it can work.

Praxis wrote:Six buttons when you count the nunchaku.

Ten if you count the D-pad as buttons (like in Metroid Prime, where it is used for weapon switching).

So either the same as the SNES, or the same as the PS2, depending.

Oh shock. Oh surprise. It's not as bad as the loons are predicting.

KhyronTheBackstabber wrote:

Mr Bean wrote: However in Consoles its a valid point because less button means less options for certian kinds of games.

Take say Halo, I need a button to shoot
1.

I need a button to switch weapons
2.

I need a button to jump of course
3. Buttons

I need a button for gernades
4. Buttons
Oops! Out of buttons, Guess there will be no Zooming, No Melee attack, No exit to menu.

I made a button layout mock up to show it can work.

Gernades?

SirNitram wrote:

Praxis wrote:Six buttons when you count the nunchaku.

Ten if you count the D-pad as buttons (like in Metroid Prime, where it is used for weapon switching).

So either the same as the SNES, or the same as the PS2, depending.

Oh shock. Oh surprise. It's not as bad as the loons are predicting.

Not to mention gestures. For example, instead of a zoom out and zoom in function, hold zoom and tilt the controller or move it to zoom in or out. Jerk the controller up in the air to reload instead of using a reload button.

Praxis wrote: Not to mention gestures. For example, instead of a zoom out and zoom in function, hold zoom and tilt the controller or move it to zoom in or out. Jerk the controller up in the air to reload instead of using a reload button.

...Tilting to zoom is a baaad thing as either it have to be a full wrist bend or even a slight tremor will send your view zooming in and out.

Mr Bean wrote:

Praxis wrote: Not to mention gestures. For example, instead of a zoom out and zoom in function, hold zoom and tilt the controller or move it to zoom in or out. Jerk the controller up in the air to reload instead of using a reload button.

...Tilting to zoom is a baaad thing as either it have to be a full wrist bend or even a slight tremor will send your view zooming in and out.

When you let go of the zoom button then it won't zoom when you move.

Alternatively, then push it slightly forward to zoom, pull closer to you to zoom out.

Praxis wrote:Not to mention gestures. For example, instead of a zoom out and zoom in function, hold zoom and tilt the controller or move it to zoom in or out. Jerk the controller up in the air to reload instead of using a reload button.

Flinging your view all over the place if you don't recenter properly, of course. You don't want to end up staring at the sky every time you have to reload, or at your feet every time you come out of zoom.

The other problem with using the point sensor for view control is that it would be like having your mouse sensitivity on lowest all the time. It would work for Metroid's controls, because that has rotation on the thumbstick, and you could use A for lock/strafe, and then you can just point the controller at the screen to aim using the position sensor, but not for any other FPS, because the gyro controls would be fiddly for aiming and require you keep the controller absolutely stable all the time if you want to move forwards, and the position sensor would give you almost no turning speed.

SirNitram wrote:

Praxis wrote:Six buttons when you count the nunchaku.

Ten if you count the D-pad as buttons (like in Metroid Prime, where it is used for weapon switching).

So either the same as the SNES, or the same as the PS2, depending.

Oh shock. Oh surprise. It's not as bad as the loons are predicting.

Except that two of them can't be used at the same time as the D-pad because of the poor layout, and trying to reach between the D-pad and the A button is probably going to move the controller enough for the motion sensor to consider it a command. So even the best case scenario leaves you restricted to four buttons max.

And of course it's the same as the SNES. That's the whole point, instead of designing a better controller, they're taking a step backward.

Praxis wrote:Not to mention gestures. For example, instead of a zoom out and zoom in function, hold zoom and tilt the controller or move it to zoom in or out. Jerk the controller up in the air to reload instead of using a reload button.

Which aren't mentioned for good reason, they're one of those ideas that sounds nice in theory, but doesn't work in reality. Your idea for reloading is just a good way to aim upward too quickly and find yourself dying as you get stuck reloading instead. Unless you're going to take view control off the motion sensor, but in that case you're right back where you started, no buttons available to move it to.

lPeregrine wrote:Except that two of them can't be used at the same time as the D-pad because of the poor layout, and trying to reach between the D-pad and the A button is probably going to move the controller enough for the motion sensor to consider it a command. So even the best case scenario leaves you restricted to four buttons max.

And of course it's the same as the SNES. That's the whole point, instead of designing a better controller, they're taking a step backward.

You're a freakin' pothead. It fits comfortably in the hands, offers a streamlined means of control, and is ergonomic. The worst you've come up with is 'Der D-pad is hard to use!'. D-pads have been shit for access for a while.

The standards of engineering have prevailed(LEss complicated, better ergonomics), and the idiots wail.

I suppose the only real way to see if this thing's actually going to work is to try it.

That being said, it does look a bit like a penis pump.

SirNitram wrote:

lPeregrine wrote:Except that two of them can't be used at the same time as the D-pad because of the poor layout, and trying to reach between the D-pad and the A button is probably going to move the controller enough for the motion sensor to consider it a command. So even the best case scenario leaves you restricted to four buttons max.

And of course it's the same as the SNES. That's the whole point, instead of designing a better controller, they're taking a step backward.

You're a freakin' pothead. It fits comfortably in the hands, offers a streamlined means of control, and is ergonomic. The worst you've come up with is 'Der D-pad is hard to use!'. D-pads have been shit for access for a while.

Are we even looking at the same picture here? Let's review:

http://www.1up.com/media?id=2308865&type=lg

Do you even see where the second set of buttons is? If you have your hand on the A/trigger/d-pad area, you can't reach them. And you can barely reach the d-pad without shifting the controller around. Sure, it's ergonomic for those four buttons, but that's too few buttons.

Even a very simple FPS (no options like alternate fire modes, scopes, etc) requires view control + 7 other buttons. MINIMUM. And this is the LOW end of game complexity. So we're presented with two choices:

1) Sacrifice gameplay features because the designers were too stupid to design a decent controller, and you don't have enough buttons to access them.

2) Buy extra add-ons for something that any competent designer would've put in the basic controller. But now you can pay extra for it.

The standards of engineering have prevailed(LEss complicated, better ergonomics), and the idiots wail.

No, the standards of engineering have been failed horribly. This controller fails the most basic requirement for a game controller: "Must be able to play decent games". How can it be good engineering when it fails even this basic requirement? There's a difference between efficiency and fatal lack of features.

By your standards, that one-button controller I posted as a joke would be great engineering! It has one simple, ergonomic button. Just press the "win" button, and you win the game. Who cares if gameplay is an absolute joke because you only have one action available, it has a simple controller!

What I'm hearing is:

wah-wah-wah... I can't play FPS on the Revolution...

FPS are made for Keyboard and Mouse nothing else. And if anyone says differently, they'll get an inquisitorial arse-kicking.

The controller has excellent potential for an amazing array of games - and given the design I saw for the remote + thumbstick array, I think that an FPS is EASILY achievable.

lPeregrine wrote:You're a freakin' pothead. It fits comfortably in the hands, offers a streamlined means of control, and is ergonomic. The worst you've come up with is 'Der D-pad is hard to use!'. D-pads have been shit for access for a while.

Are we even looking at the same picture here? Let's review:

http://www.1up.com/media?id=2308865&type=lg

Do you even see where the second set of buttons is? If you have your hand on the A/trigger/d-pad area, you can't reach them. And you can barely reach the d-pad without shifting the controller around. Sure, it's ergonomic for those four buttons, but that's too few buttons.[/quote]

Ah, you're simply blind. The lower set of buttons are also A and B... Allowing you to hold it like a classic NES control.

Even a very simple FPS (no options like alternate fire modes, scopes, etc) requires view control + 7 other buttons. MINIMUM. And this is the LOW end of game complexity. So we're presented with two choices:

Incorrect. A simple FPS requires view(The motion sensor), jump and crouch(A&B), movement(Analog), and fire/exchange('Z' and 'Z2'). The D-pad can exchange weapons, or you can drop crouch for exchange.

But why be honest when one can bullshit?

1) Sacrifice gameplay features because the designers were too stupid to design a decent controller, and you don't have enough buttons to access them.

Ah yes, because all great games were on the beasts of the Playstation.. Wait, no, you're bullshitting.

2) Buy extra add-ons for something that any competent designer would've put in the basic controller. But now you can pay extra for it.

Or you could program intelligently.

The standards of engineering have prevailed(LEss complicated, better ergonomics), and the idiots wail.

No, the standards of engineering have been failed horribly. This controller fails the most basic requirement for a game controller: "Must be able to play decent games". How can it be good engineering when it fails even this basic requirement? There's a difference between efficiency and fatal lack of features.

'Play decent games' has never and will never equal 'Needs eleventy seven buttons'. Your blatant lie here just shows how insane you are.

By your standards, that one-button controller I posted as a joke would be great engineering! It has one simple, ergonomic button. Just press the "win" button, and you win the game. Who cares if gameplay is an absolute joke because you only have one action available, it has a simple controller!

Nice strawman, shithead. Go away.

weemadando wrote:What I'm hearing is:

wah-wah-wah... I can't play FPS on the Revolution...

FPS are made for Keyboard and Mouse nothing else. And if anyone says differently, they'll get an inquisitorial arse-kicking.

The controller has excellent potential for an amazing array of games - and given the design I saw for the remote + thumbstick array, I think that an FPS is EASILY achievable.

The point is that an FPS is an example of a game on the low end of the complexity scale. A simple quake-style deathmatch game isn't too demanding on the controller, compared to a flight sim which needs a keyboard and 30 keys minimum.

The simple fact is, the designers have limited themselves to sub-FPS complexity as a maximum. There's just no excuse for that kind of poor design.

FPS has control complexity - not gameplay complexity.

Guess which is more important.

SirNitram wrote:Ah, you're simply blind. The lower set of buttons are also A and B... Allowing you to hold it like a classic NES control.

I guess reading isn't your best skill. That was a reply to the poster who claimed that it had six buttons available at the same time (ten if you count the d-pad). Which, like you said, isn't true. To use the lower set, you have to hold it differently and give up the left-hand attachment.

Incorrect. A simple FPS requires view(The motion sensor), jump and crouch(A&B), movement(Analog), and fire/exchange('Z' and 'Z2'). The D-pad can exchange weapons, or you can drop crouch for exchange.

But why be honest when one can bullshit?

Wow, great FPS design. You've now eliminated the option to carry more than one weapon at a time or open doors, or reload your weapon mid-clip. And why are those features sacrificed? Because the controller was designed by morons.

1) Sacrifice gameplay features because the designers were too stupid to design a decent controller, and you don't have enough buttons to access them.

Ah yes, because all great games were on the beasts of the Playstation.. Wait, no, you're bullshitting.

Are you honestly this thick-headed? If you don't have a button available for "reload weapon", that nice feature "reloadable weapons" can't be included. So guess what, we get games with features missing because of horrible controller design.

2) Buy extra add-ons for something that any competent designer would've put in the basic controller. But now you can pay extra for it.

Or you could program intelligently.

Yes, because "program intelligently" means the same thing as "remove features until you have the gameplay depth of a puddle". What's so hard to understand about this concept? It's absolutely stupid design if you have to buy an add-on controller just to have enough buttons to reload your weapon.

'Play decent games' has never and will never equal 'Needs eleventy seven buttons'. Your blatant lie here just shows how insane you are.

Nice strawman. I never said you need eleventy seven buttons to have a decent game. Even adding four more buttons would've been a nice improvement, and it's not exactly hard to do that.

By your standards, that one-button controller I posted as a joke would be great engineering! It has one simple, ergonomic button. Just press the "win" button, and you win the game. Who cares if gameplay is an absolute joke because you only have one action available, it has a simple controller!

Nice strawman, shithead. Go away.

It's not a strawman at all, just an extension of your own argument. If simplifying the controller to the point where you have to sacrifice gameplay features is a thing to be praised, then you should be begging to buy my proposal. By disagreeing with it, you prove my point quite nicely. It's bad design to put ergonomics and simplicity far above gameplay options in your priority list.

Vendetta wrote:

Praxis wrote:Not to mention gestures. For example, instead of a zoom out and zoom in function, hold zoom and tilt the controller or move it to zoom in or out. Jerk the controller up in the air to reload instead of using a reload button.

Flinging your view all over the place if you don't recenter properly, of course. You don't want to end up staring at the sky every time you have to reload, or at your feet every time you come out of zoom.

The other problem with using the point sensor for view control is that it would be like having your mouse sensitivity on lowest all the time. It would work for Metroid's controls, because that has rotation on the thumbstick, and you could use A for lock/strafe, and then you can just point the controller at the screen to aim using the position sensor, but not for any other FPS, because the gyro controls would be fiddly for aiming and require you keep the controller absolutely stable all the time if you want to move forwards, and the position sensor would give you almost no turning speed.

Uhm, WHY would you be staring at the sky or at your foot? It depends on the game. REMEMBER that the controller allows you to shoot by pointing at the screen. Pointing offscreen would...point offscreen. Some FPS may use that control scheme.

What's the point of the Nanchuku then... why make an attachment? Why not just have it part of the controller to begin with. I thought Nintendo's emphasis was on simplicity, and getting people who are scared of picking up a controller to actually pick this up. I'd imagine that if there are attachments, that's going to make these gamers that Nintendo is trying to reach out to, more confused.

lPeregrine wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Ah, you're simply blind. The lower set of buttons are also A and B... Allowing you to hold it like a classic NES control.

I guess reading isn't your best skill. That was a reply to the poster who claimed that it had six buttons available at the same time (ten if you count the d-pad). Which, like you said, isn't true. To use the lower set, you have to hold it differently and give up the left-hand attachment.

So at best you were replying to someone else when quoting me, making you a blithering retard. Next time, try addressing the person making the argument. Or is that expecting too much from your clearly limited mind?

Incorrect. A simple FPS requires view(The motion sensor), jump and crouch(A&B), movement(Analog), and fire/exchange('Z' and 'Z2'). The D-pad can exchange weapons, or you can drop crouch for exchange.

But why be honest when one can bullshit?

Wow, great FPS design. You've now eliminated the option to carry more than one weapon at a time or open doors, or reload your weapon mid-clip. And why are those features sacrificed? Because the controller was designed by morons.

You said 'Simple', kiddo. Don't backpedal too hard; you'll trip over those clown feet.

Wowee. A console which can't play perfect FPS'. Therefore it's like.. Every console yet conceived, including the X-Box Three Shitty and PS3.

1) Sacrifice gameplay features because the designers were too stupid to design a decent controller, and you don't have enough buttons to access them.

Ah yes, because all great games were on the beasts of the Playstation.. Wait, no, you're bullshitting.

Are you honestly this thick-headed? If you don't have a button available for "reload weapon", that nice feature "reloadable weapons" can't be included. So guess what, we get games with features missing because of horrible controller design.

'WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!! FPS' WON'T BE PERFECT!!!!!!!!'

So you're just a fanboy for a genre that's always been shit on the consoles? Duly noted.

2) Buy extra add-ons for something that any competent designer would've put in the basic controller. But now you can pay extra for it.

Or you could program intelligently.

Yes, because "program intelligently" means the same thing as "remove features until you have the gameplay depth of a puddle". What's so hard to understand about this concept? It's absolutely stupid design if you have to buy an add-on controller just to have enough buttons to reload your weapon.

Wah wah wah. You don't like the idea of FPS' that aren't equal to the computer. Go play on a computer then. No console has done FPS' as well as a computer. Only delusional Halo wankers think otherwise.

'Play decent games' has never and will never equal 'Needs eleventy seven buttons'. Your blatant lie here just shows how insane you are.

Nice strawman. I never said you need eleventy seven buttons to have a decent game. Even adding four more buttons would've been a nice improvement, and it's not exactly hard to do that.

By your standards, that one-button controller I posted as a joke would be great engineering! It has one simple, ergonomic button. Just press the "win" button, and you win the game. Who cares if gameplay is an absolute joke because you only have one action available, it has a simple controller!

Nice strawman, shithead. Go away.

It's not a strawman at all, just an extension of your own argument. If simplifying the controller to the point where you have to sacrifice gameplay features is a thing to be praised, then you should be begging to buy my proposal. By disagreeing with it, you prove my point quite nicely. It's bad design to put ergonomics and simplicity far above gameplay options in your priority list.

Reductio Ad Absurdum. It's a fallacy. Don't spew it, fucktard.

mplsjocc wrote:What's the point of the Nanchuku then... why make an attachment? Why not just have it part of the controller to begin with. I thought Nintendo's emphasis was on simplicity, and getting people who are scared of picking up a controller to actually pick this up. I'd imagine that if there are attachments, that's going to make these gamers that Nintendo is trying to reach out to, more confused.

Dude, try imagining a big joystick and two shoulder buttons added to that remote control, on TOP of the trigger underneath and D-pad and buttons on top.

Would not work. You definitely need the second hand.

Praxis wrote:Dude, try imagining a big joystick and two shoulder buttons added to that remote control, on TOP of the trigger underneath and D-pad and buttons on top.

Would not work. You definitely need the second hand.

Even disregarding this, it looks like a more comfortable arrangement by the design. Throw in the lightgun feature of the main controller... Ah, there I go, fanboying over my lightguns. The FPS whiners can take their Halos and Goldeneyes; give me Time Crisis and Duck Hunt.

Hell, you can finally ditch 'railed' missions with the addon..

Damn lPeregrine, you just want to hate this thing don't you. You're not even trying to think about how it can work.

Let's take the mock up I made, and make a few changes

You can take the zoom, and put it at D up, and use the analog to zoom in/out.
D down: crouch
D left: Weapon select
D Right: Item select
Z 2: Use item/open doors
b button ( the one near the bottom) Reload

Now before you start screaming about it being hard to get to, the only reason to reload mid-clip is to have a full clip when going into a fire fight, not during, that's what auto-reload is for.

So at best you were replying to someone else when quoting me, making you a blithering retard. Next time, try addressing the person making the argument. Or is that expecting too much from your clearly limited mind?

Maybe you could actually try reading the quote you're talking about. I quoted you agreeing with Praxis on the 6 or 10 issue. It was a reply to both of you, him for making the argument, and you for agreeing with it.

You said 'Simple', kiddo. Wink Don't backpedal too hard; you'll trip over those clown feet.

Simple, as in basic deathmatch, not a squad-based realistic fps. As in, one that doesn't include things like different fire modes, leaning around corners, etc.

Wowee. A console which can't play perfect FPS'. Therefore it's like.. Every console yet conceived, including the X-Box Three Shitty and PS3.

Hey, brilliant observation there. Poor input options has always been a problem with consoles, but the revolution actually makes it worse.

'WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!! FPS' WON'T BE PERFECT!!!!!!!!'

So you're just a fanboy for a genre that's always been shit on the consoles? Duly noted.

No, I'm just pointing out that lack of buttons available means lack of gameplay features. It's just as bad a flaw if we're talking about a racing game where they had to discard the option for manual gear-shifting because they didn't have buttons for it.

Any genre can suffer from lack of buttons. I just used the FPS example because it's a simple game type that should be possible on pretty much any system.

Wah wah wah. You don't like the idea of FPS' that aren't equal to the computer. Go play on a computer then. No console has done FPS' as well as a computer. Only delusional Halo wankers think otherwise.

Again, the FPS example was just the most convenient one. It's still horrible design if you have to buy an add-on controller to shift gears in a racing game, or open the map in your rpg without digging through 5 levels of menus.

Reductio Ad Absurdum. It's a fallacy. Don't spew it, fucktard.

Is this your idea of good debating? Cycle through fallacy labels until you find one I don't feel like arguing against?

The simple fact that you consider it an absurd result proves your own argument wrong. Simplicity is NOT the highest priority when it results in shallow gameplay. Just like one button, four buttons is way too low a level to use for the maximum complexity of your system.

========================================

Damn lPeregrine, you just want to hate this thing don't you. You're not even trying to think about how it can work.

Let's take the mock up I made, and make a few changes

You can take the zoom, and put it at D up, and use the analog to zoom in/out.
D down: crouch
D left: Weapon select
D Right: Item select
Z 2: Use item/open doors
b button ( the one near the bottom) Reload

Now before you start screaming about it being hard to get to, the only reason to reload mid-clip is to have a full clip when going into a fire fight, not during, that's what auto-reload is for.

The problem with the D-pad is that it's in an awkward place. It's not too far to reach, unlike the lower A/B buttons, but it's unlikely that you could do it while holding the controller steady. Unless of course you set the sensitivity on the motion sensor down so low that you have to swing your arm around wildly to move quickly.

Look where the person's hand is in that picture. Their thumb is already reaching upward, but they still don't reach the D-pad. It's a nice position to reach A/trigger, but to get to the D-pad you'd have to shift your grip (and then lose easy access to A/trigger).
[/quote]

lPeregrine wrote:

So at best you were replying to someone else when quoting me, making you a blithering retard. Next time, try addressing the person making the argument. Or is that expecting too much from your clearly limited mind?

Maybe you could actually try reading the quote you're talking about. I quoted you agreeing with Praxis on the 6 or 10 issue. It was a reply to both of you, him for making the argument, and you for agreeing with it.

So again, you're just being a retard for not addressing the person making the mistake, and you're too arrogant to admit to it. No surprise.

You said 'Simple', kiddo. Wink Don't backpedal too hard; you'll trip over those clown feet.

Simple, as in basic deathmatch, not a squad-based realistic fps. As in, one that doesn't include things like different fire modes, leaning around corners, etc.

Backpedal faster, you idiot. Simple is a design philosophy, and simple is what you got.

Wowee. A console which can't play perfect FPS'. Therefore it's like.. Every console yet conceived, including the X-Box Three Shitty and PS3.

Hey, brilliant observation there. Poor input options has always been a problem with consoles, but the revolution actually makes it worse.

Something you have not yet proven, but you don't bother with that. It will work fine with simple FPS', and offer control options the Batarang won't.

'WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!! FPS' WON'T BE PERFECT!!!!!!!!'

So you're just a fanboy for a genre that's always been shit on the consoles? Duly noted.

No, I'm just pointing out that lack of buttons available means lack of gameplay features. It's just as bad a flaw if we're talking about a racing game where they had to discard the option for manual gear-shifting because they didn't have buttons for it.

So in a fully expanded FPS you have problems. Guess what? This doesn't translate into every other game. Dozens of excellent games existed before the PS2 controller. You being an ignorant fanboy just means you don't know of them.

Any genre can suffer from lack of buttons. I just used the FPS example because it's a simple game type that should be possible on pretty much any system.

Then why has every console sucked ass at it? Oh yes, design options that actually cripple it, as opposed to OMFG NOT 73756463 BUTTONZ!!!!'

Wah wah wah. You don't like the idea of FPS' that aren't equal to the computer. Go play on a computer then. No console has done FPS' as well as a computer. Only delusional Halo wankers think otherwise.

Again, the FPS example was just the most convenient one. It's still horrible design if you have to buy an add-on controller to shift gears in a racing game, or open the map in your rpg without digging through 5 levels of menus.

You're fucking high. Chrono Trigger, FF6, and Earthbound, three of the best RPGs around, needed far less than the number of buttons presented.

Reductio Ad Absurdum. It's a fallacy. Don't spew it, fucktard.

Is this your idea of good debating? Cycle through fallacy labels until you find one I don't feel like arguing against?

It's the same fucking fallacy, you dumbshit troll. You take my argument and you dress it in a clown suit then try to pretend it's what I said. It doesn't fly.

The simple fact that you consider it an absurd result proves your own argument wrong. Simplicity is NOT the highest priority when it results in shallow gameplay. Just like one button, four buttons is way too low a level to use for the maximum complexity of your system.

It's time for a session of Good Idea/Bad Idea:

Good idea: Spirited debate about a hardware choice on a major console.

Bad idea: Being a dumbshit troll by repeatedly strawmanning your opponent's argument into a no-limits chariacture, then scream "UR NOT DEBATING!!!!!!' when called on it. To a supermod.

So again, you're just being a retard for not addressing the person making the mistake, and you're too arrogant to admit to it. No surprise.

I guess you missed the part where you agreed with the mistake? You quoted his 6/10 statement as evidence for "it's not as bad as you're all saying". By agreeing with the mistake, you were making it as well. But go ahead and keep whining about formatting a quote wrong instead of making a real point.

Backpedal faster, you idiot. Simple is a design philosophy, and simple is what you got.

How is that backpedalling? I said "simple" not "first FPS ever level primitive". A simple FPS, as in one where you run around and shoot things, quake deathmatch style. Not something like the battlefield games which have other gameplay elements that demand extra controls.

Yes, I'm aware that it's techincally a FPS if you have one gun, no jumping/doors/etc, but you know perfectly well what I meant. Anyone with a bit of common sense knows that there's a line between "simple" and "why the hell can't I jump in this game?"

Something you have not yet proven, but you don't bother with that. It will work fine with simple FPS', and offer control options the Batarang won't.

Fine, you want proof? How many RTS games have you seen on a console? There, proof that the controllers available for consoles limit what you can do. I'd call "limited gameplay options" a problem.

The revolution makes it worse by making the four button limit a hardware limit, not a game design choice. Now you don't even have the option to add other features unless you pay extra money for an add-on controller. Even the SNES had more than four buttons!

So in a fully expanded FPS you have problems. Guess what? This doesn't translate into every other game. Dozens of excellent games existed before the PS2 controller. You being an ignorant fanboy just means you don't know of them.

I never said it translates into every game having problems. Lets look at two possible designs:

1) Console #1 has 8 buttons + the motion sensor + the control stick. Pretty much the revolution's controller with a few extra buttons added in the empty space.

Console #1 has some good games that use 4 buttons, some good games that use 5 buttons, and even some good games that use all 8 buttons.

2) Console #2 is the revolution, and has only four buttons. Because of flawed design, console #2 can only play the games which use 4 buttons.


Now do you get the problem? The fact that some games use only four buttons and are enjoyable doesn't mean the lack of buttons isn't hurting other potential games. Now those 5-8 button games either aren't made, or their quality suffers when the designer is forced to make sacrifices to deal with the hardware limits.

Then why has every console sucked ass at it? Oh yes, design options that actually cripple it, as opposed to OMFG NOT 73756463 BUTTONZ!!!!'

But it's still possible to do it. FPS are a common game type that requires relatively few keys/buttons to play, so they make a good standard for comparison. Expecting a console to be able to play a realistic flight sim would be insanity, the number of buttons required is much higher than what you can put on a controller. But any decently designed controller should have enough buttons to play FPSs. This isn't that demanding a requirement, even the revolution could do it if it turned some of that wasted space into buttons, instead of trying to look pretty.

You're fucking high. Chrono Trigger, FF6, and Earthbound, three of the best RPGs around, needed far less than the number of buttons presented.

You're missing the point completely. Yes, there have been good games with simple controls. That doesn't justify forcing game designers to comply with an absurdly low limit on control options.

For every good game you can name that would work on a four-button system, I can name one that would be ruined by having to sacrifice features to cut the controls down to four buttons.

It's the same fucking fallacy, you dumbshit troll. You take my argument and you dress it in a clown suit then try to pretend it's what I said. It doesn't fly.

And as for the last part, I think it may have been poor wording on my part. Yes, I was exaggerating to make a point, but there is a legitimate argument in there. And it didn't involve claiming you actually thought a one-button controller was a good idea. The intent was to highlight the point that simplicity has to have limits, not to accuse you of supporting a one-button controller (especially one designed as obvious parody).

The argument, as it is supposed to be:

You: The revolution's controller is good, because it is simple and ergonomic.

Me: Simplicity is a poor design choice when it comes at the cost of gameplay depth. A one-button controller is simple and efficient, but would provide absurdly bad "gameplay". Therefore obviously a point exists where simplicity becomes a bad thing. A four-button controller is on the wrong side of this point.

You: (insert reply here)