StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Gameplay depth has not a fucking thing to do with controller depth.

Some of the best games are played using a device with 2 fucking button - a mouse - care to list ALL OF THE FUCKING GAMES THAT CAN BE PLAYED USING ONLY A MOUSE?

Are you saying that all of those games have shallow gameplay compared to wonders like Marine Sharpshooter and Big Rig Racing, just because they use more buttons?

Fuck the hell off.

A controller with fewer buttons is all good in my book and the innovations in the Revolution controller more than make up for the lack of ~10 of pretty coloured buttons.

Once again, to sum up my argument: controller complexity /= depth of gameplay.

Two things, First a question.

Light guns do not work with all TV's. Infact they work with very few modern TV's. Any TV that can't flash(So the gun can pick up the Light) can't register the hits.

Meaning that unless they are doing it via the fancy gyro. The aim and shoot function won't work with most TV's. (Putting this out right there)

Second is to respond to weemadando irate statement.

Look, Aside from a few wonderful titles that use mouse only. And adventure games(What few that have been released latley) RTS(Which acutal finaly might be a possibility on the Rev since you need to be VERY percise with your clicking) the grand majority of games out there require a good minium of six buttons to get the basic functions down.


I think we can agree, The minium is four. The Revolution has that many as we can see. Now in certian games your going to need more, thus the err attachement.

Your game might not need fifteen buttons. It might only need eight. But for the majority of console games on the market today Need a good minium of six buttons The standard remote controler(Moving right along) has that six buttons, a up/down/left/right to move with. The Movement is provided by the cross while the Aiming is provided by the aiming of the remote.

And that leaves you with a button to go into the menu. To pause and three buttons to play your game with.

Pretty much if your game requires more than three buttons. Then your out of luck or you slap a "requires an extender" or what have you on the box.


Side note, I'm not sure but I'd hope the extender is default with the remote as trying to move and aim at the same time one handed(Or even with a two hand grid) on the standard remote would put out some serious vertigo.

Hell, with the motion sensor, why even bother wasting a button on zooming, when you can just extend the hand holding the control forward? On that note, something that could easily be included in FPS with the Revolution using this method: Intuitive melee attack, aka Bayonet Time!

Mr Bean wrote:Light guns do not work with all TV's. Infact they work with very few modern TV's. Any TV that can't flash(So the gun can pick up the Light) can't register the hits.

Meaning that unless they are doing it via the fancy gyro. The aim and shoot function won't work with most TV's. (Putting this out right there)

If I'm not mistake (from what I've read), the motion sensor actually operates by having a detector (external to the console?) track it, but apparently it is just as accurate as light gun are.

Side note, I'm not sure but I'd hope the extender is default with the remote as trying to move and aim at the same time one handed(Or even with a two hand grid) on the standard remote would put out some serious vertigo.

Everything I've read so far indicates that the analog stick add-on is standard.

Mr Bean wrote:the grand majority of games out there require a good minium of six buttons to get the basic functions down.

Actually.. The grand minimum is two. Because there was an absurd number of games made for the NES generation. And gameboy. And so on. Alot of these were extremely high quality; they didn't have bazillions of polys, but they had great gameplay.

Mr Bean wrote:Look, Aside from a few wonderful titles that use mouse only. And adventure games(What few that have been released latley) RTS(Which acutal finaly might be a possibility on the Rev since you need to be VERY percise with your clicking) the grand majority of games out there require a good minium of six buttons to get the basic functions down.


I think we can agree, The minium is four. The Revolution has that many as we can see. Now in certian games your going to need more, thus the err attachement.

Your game might not need fifteen buttons. It might only need eight. But for the majority of console games on the market today Need a good minium of six buttons The standard remote controler(Moving right along) has that six buttons, a up/down/left/right to move with. The Movement is provided by the cross while the Aiming is provided by the aiming of the remote.

And that leaves you with a button to go into the menu. To pause and three buttons to play your game with.

Pretty much if your game requires more than three buttons. Then your out of luck or you slap a "requires an extender" or what have you on the box.


Side note, I'm not sure but I'd hope the extender is default with the remote as trying to move and aim at the same time one handed(Or even with a two hand grid) on the standard remote would put out some serious vertigo.

Fairly certain the extender is standard. As for how you can manage 6 usable control buttons using that: Z1, Z2, D-up, D-down, D-left, D-right. Voila, six. Only problem I see is you no longer get to use the A & B buttons, maybe. You might be able to use the B button when you have the controller choked up that far.

lPeregrine wrote:

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.

Formatting a quote? You addressed the wrong bloody person entirely, you brain-dead carp.

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.

There is nothing 'first FPS ever' here, you fucking lying peice of dogshit. You yourself admitted this would service a modern realistic FPS. Once again: Troll.

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?"

You have clearly suffered yet another blow to your head; I addressed jumping, troll.

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.

You lying little trollop. You see me go on about the inherent limitations of a console, then use that as your argument?

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!

God yes, back we go 'Oh noz, less buttonz inherently bad, even if I can only provide proof for FPS', which suck ass on Consoles anyway!'

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:

No, you've just been screeching how this is suicide, how no good game could be built for this...

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.

So they cannot accept straight ports. Whoop. De. Fuck. You are once again resetting to your standard, idiot-ass ways of cart before horse. No programmer creates the design first and THEN looks at the hardware.

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 don't actually think before you post, I see. The Rev's controller is not going to have places for extra, slapped on buttons. It's design is clearly made to be held in the manner shown, with your fingers on the buttons all the time.(Exception: D-pad)

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.

Nor does it justify pumping out a dozen or two buttons just because of ignorant fanboys like you who can't actually prove a point.

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.

Yes, because you insist on this strawman of 'We design the game THEN we look at the hardware!!!!'. No, the average programmer is not as much of a fucking dumbass as you.

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).

There's no fucking legitimate argument in "YOU SAID SIMPLE, ONE BUTTON SIMPLE, HUR HUR". NEver has, never will be. It's strawmanning, it's no-limits, it's reductio ad absurdum.

Does this stop you? No. You're a fucking troll, unworthy to roll in my spittle.

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)

Reductio Ad Absurdum Fallacy, Fuck Off, Go To Hell You Pus-Soaked Troll is my reply. When you have a reply which is not based in a fallacy, then you will get a reply.

Getting away from the arguements for a second....couldn't the home button on the controller be used as an automatic re-center for the positioning system?

Archaic` wrote:Getting away from the arguements for a second....couldn't the home button on the controller be used as an automatic re-center for the positioning system?

Indeed it could, unless the command has been hardwired in the controller and Revolution console itself, there is no reason a control scheme for a game could make any of the buttons fo anything.

Home could reposition the zoom/look controls to "Dead center unzoomed", the A button could be jump, or move forward, or whatever.

The claims that the few buttons on the controller limits the gameplay is only coming from the diseased, unwashed masses who confuse control complexity with game depth.

With the Nanchuku attachment, the Revolution controller has comperable number of buttons to the PS2/3 and Xbox/Xbox360 controllers, and will not be limited as the sheeple ae crying.

In my humble opinion, that is.

Mr Bean wrote:Two things, First a question.

Light guns do not work with all TV's. Infact they work with very few modern TV's. Any TV that can't flash(So the gun can pick up the Light) can't register the hits.

Meaning that unless they are doing it via the fancy gyro. The aim and shoot function won't work with most TV's. (Putting this out right there)

The remote control does not work on the light gun technology. In fact, I'm not really sure how it works. They are doing it via the fancy gyro and the sensor on your TV.



My guess is that you have to put the sensor aligned with your TV, and since it knows the distance from the receiver and the tilt and angle of the controller it can calculate where it would intersect with the plane the sensor would be on? That's just a guess.

Beowulf wrote:

Mr Bean wrote:Look, Aside from a few wonderful titles that use mouse only. And adventure games(What few that have been released latley) RTS(Which acutal finaly might be a possibility on the Rev since you need to be VERY percise with your clicking) the grand majority of games out there require a good minium of six buttons to get the basic functions down.


I think we can agree, The minium is four. The Revolution has that many as we can see. Now in certian games your going to need more, thus the err attachement.

Your game might not need fifteen buttons. It might only need eight. But for the majority of console games on the market today Need a good minium of six buttons The standard remote controler(Moving right along) has that six buttons, a up/down/left/right to move with. The Movement is provided by the cross while the Aiming is provided by the aiming of the remote.

And that leaves you with a button to go into the menu. To pause and three buttons to play your game with.

Pretty much if your game requires more than three buttons. Then your out of luck or you slap a "requires an extender" or what have you on the box.


Side note, I'm not sure but I'd hope the extender is default with the remote as trying to move and aim at the same time one handed(Or even with a two hand grid) on the standard remote would put out some serious vertigo.

Fairly certain the extender is standard. As for how you can manage 6 usable control buttons using that: Z1, Z2, D-up, D-down, D-left, D-right. Voila, six. Only problem I see is you no longer get to use the A & B buttons, maybe. You might be able to use the B button when you have the controller choked up that far.

That's eight. Z1, Z2, D-up, D-down, D-left, D-right, A, B. A is the big fat button; B is the trigger underneath the remote. The a and b (shown as X and Y in the video, but a and b in the screenshot) may not be reachable. And I'm not counting start and select.


And yes, the analog stick expansion, the nunchaku, is standard.

SirNitram wrote:

Mr Bean wrote:the grand majority of games out there require a good minium of six buttons to get the basic functions down.

Actually.. The grand minimum is two. Because there was an absurd number of games made for the NES generation. And gameboy. And so on. Alot of these were extremely high quality; they didn't have bazillions of polys, but they had great gameplay.

For the time Based on that I could argue that You only need one button because when Pong was released all the great games of the time(There was only Pong and the Odyess games) All used nothing but the joystick and a button.

When I said the majority of games. I ment games right now released for the Playstation 1/2 , Gamecube and Xbox. They use on avarage I'd say six buttons.


As for the numbers of the games made for the NES... Thats because it was damn easy to program for the NES. With sprities you did not need a fancy art department. Textures? You only need about twenty and you can get them from the basic toolkit! Look at the PC-RPG Makers. You can make Final Fantasy 1-6 quality RPG's if you just invest enough time in it and have some talent. Five guys in a rented office could easily turn out an NES game . And it took about six months, one of the reasons why there were so many.

I've been looking at a remote control for a stereo that looks roughly around the same size as the one Nintendo showed and, for me, it's possible to reach each button on it. So if the controller is around 5 - 6 inches in length it shouldn't be a problem for a person to uas each button.

SirNitram wrote:

lPeregrine wrote:

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.

Formatting a quote? You addressed the wrong bloody person entirely, you brain-dead carp.

I addressed exactly who I intended to, both of the people I quoted. Him for making the flawed statement, and you for agreeing with it and quoting it as evidence against me. This really isn't a complicated concept here.

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.

There is nothing 'first FPS ever' here, you fucking lying peice of dogshit. You yourself admitted this would service a modern realistic FPS. Once again: Troll.

No, of course we're not going back to "first FPS ever." We'll just forget the fact that your FPS proposal is lacking a simple feature that is considered mandatory in any decent modern FPS, the ability to open doors. We're not talking about someting nitpicky like not having 5 different alternate fire modes, each with a separate key. You can't leave out basic features like that and still call it a modern FPS.

The only thing that has changed is the reason for leaving it out. It used to be "we don't have enough processing power to include this complicated feature", now it's just "our hardware design morons forgot to include enough buttons to add it."

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?"

You have clearly suffered yet another blow to your head; I addressed jumping, troll.

Fine, I concede, you are the superior debater. I named the wrong missing feature. Instead of jumping, you leave out an equally basic and equally mandatory feature, the ability to open doors and activate other items. You know, the "use" key that every FPS in recent memory has included.

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.

You lying little trollop. You see me go on about the inherent limitations of a console, then use that as your argument?

Good, then we agree. Consoles have an inherent limitation. Therefore the solution is to try to fix that limit, not make it even worse. Instead of making a less-limited system, the revolution's designers just pretend their flaw is actually a feature.

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!

God yes, back we go 'Oh noz, less buttonz inherently bad, even if I can only provide proof for FPS', which suck ass on Consoles anyway!'

In other words, you need a complete control listing of every modern game to prove that four buttons is too few.

And nice strawman, turning "four buttons is too few" into "less buttons is inherently bad." Removing buttons isn't always a bad thing, but in this case, it is.

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:

No, you've just been screeching how this is suicide, how no good game could be built for this...

So it's not design suicide if poor controller design results in having only a third of the good games that would otherwise be produced. Because hey, as long as there's at least one good game, it's worth the money to buy it.

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.

So they cannot accept straight ports. Whoop. De. Fuck. You are once again resetting to your standard, idiot-ass ways of cart before horse. No programmer creates the design first and THEN looks at the hardware.

Who said anything about straight ports? And I'm aware they're going to look at the hardware first. And then all the designers with ideas for more complex games are going to move to other systems, giving the exact same problem I described. The revolution gets the good games that can work with four buttons. The other systems get the good games that can work with four buttons, five buttons, etc.

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 don't actually think before you post, I see. The Rev's controller is not going to have places for extra, slapped on buttons. It's design is clearly made to be held in the manner shown, with your fingers on the buttons all the time.(Exception: D-pad)

And notice how many fingers you have without buttons. Add a second or third trigger/side button, move the d-pad where you can actually use it, and put a couple more on the attachment. There, fingers still on the buttons at all times, but now you have a much better controller.

Or how about replacing that left-hand attachment with a 4x4 grid of keyboard-style buttons. You get a nice simple motion sensor part, and still have more than enough buttons to play pretty much any game type.

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.

Nor does it justify pumping out a dozen or two buttons just because of ignorant fanboys like you who can't actually prove a point.

You know, for someone who likes to whine about strawman arguments, you sure make a lot of them. Please tell me exactly where I demanded "a dozen or two" buttons. But I guess it's a lot easier to argue against this strawman of a 20 button controller that's a keyboard in all but name than to address the issue of the revolution having 4-6 buttons too few.

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.

Yes, because you insist on this strawman of 'We design the game THEN we look at the hardware!!!!'. No, the average programmer is not as much of a fucking dumbass as you.

No, they say "I have an idea for a real-time RPG with lots of diverse magic." Then they look at the revolution's hardware, notice that its poor design and lack of buttons for spell keys means you'll be stuck with an awkward menu system for making your action choices. And then they move on to a different system with better control options.

The point is, the revolution's designers have put an upper limit on the complexity of games that can be used with it. And for absolutely no gain in exchange.

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).

There's no fucking legitimate argument in "YOU SAID SIMPLE, ONE BUTTON SIMPLE, HUR HUR". NEver has, never will be. It's strawmanning, it's no-limits, it's reductio ad absurdum.

Nice to see your reading level is limited to seeing "one button" somewhere in a paragraph and screaming fallacy names. If you'd actually bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see that none of those apply. I never claimed you were arguing for a one button controller. Lets dissect this argument:


Your argument: The revolution's controller is a good design because it is simple and efficient.

My proposal: Simplicity must have limits.

My evidence for this: A one button controller is simple, but horrible design. Any person with a bit of common sense can see this.

Conclusion: Simplicty must have limits. Specifically, the limit of "simplicity must not harm gameplay too much." We can't just look at simplicity alone when analyzing the design, we have to consider how getting that simplicity affects other issues.

You and any other reasonably intelligent person: I agree, simplicity has limits.

My argument: Now that we've established that simplicity must have limits, and we all agree on this point, the revolution's controller is simplicity taken too far. Four buttons is on the wrong side of the point where simplicity begins to harm the end result.

Your reply: The revolution's controller is not too simple, because...



Now please point out exactly where I commit a strawman fallacy by claiming the one button is your argument. And I'd really like to know how it can be a no limits fallacy when the entire point of the argument is that a limit exists!

Praxis wrote: That's eight. Z1, Z2, D-up, D-down, D-left, D-right, A, B. A is the big fat button; B is the trigger underneath the remote. The a and b (shown as X and Y in the video, but a and b in the screenshot) may not be reachable. And I'm not counting start and select.


And yes, the analog stick expansion, the nunchaku, is standard.

Except you can't easily reach all the D buttons and A/B at the same time. So yes, it has 8 buttons. But the question is how many buttons it has available at once, not how many total. Buttons don't count if like a/b they're impossible to reach while using another set.

lPeregrine wrote:

Praxis wrote: That's eight. Z1, Z2, D-up, D-down, D-left, D-right, A, B. A is the big fat button; B is the trigger underneath the remote. The a and b (shown as X and Y in the video, but a and b in the screenshot) may not be reachable. And I'm not counting start and select.


And yes, the analog stick expansion, the nunchaku, is standard.

Except you can't easily reach all the D buttons and A/B at the same time. So yes, it has 8 buttons. But the question is how many buttons it has available at once, not how many total. Buttons don't count if like a/b they're impossible to reach while using another set.

Okay, one of three things just happened.

1) You skimmed through my post without actually reading it and made a snap response.
2) You have a comprehension problem.
3) You're just trolling.

Okay, from this point on I am going to call the little a and little b, X and Y, as shown in the video, instead of a and B in the screenshots.
Let's quote myself again.

That's eight. Z1, Z2, D-up, D-down, D-left, D-right, A, B. A is the big fat button; B is the trigger underneath the remote. The a and b (shown as X and Y in the video, but a and b in the screenshot) may not be reachable.

You'll notice that I DID NOT COUNT X and Y.


If we count X and Y, then it is TEN buttons. A, B, X (a), Y (b), D-up, D-down, D-left, D-right, Z1, and Z2. That's ten buttons.

Why stop there? Count start and select and we have TWELVE buttons.

That's TWELVE buttons, two of which cannot be reached at the same time as the others. So use those two buttons for switching modes or something.

Okay, here. Someone on another board, a so-called Master of Microsoft Paint, made this (low quality) image to show that Halo is playable on the Revolution.

I will link to big pictures. I will link to big pictures...

You'll see the B button in the air- you'll remember that B is Melee Attack. If you make Melee Attack sticking the controller forward, then the Revolution has all the buttons needed. And it uses that hard-to-reach X button for displaying your score in multiplayer, and doesn't use one of the buttons (Y).

Normal controls for comparison:

Remember, more buttons is ALWAYS better! Behold the greatest controller ever made:

lPeregrine wrote:

SirNitram wrote: Formatting a quote? You addressed the wrong bloody person entirely, you brain-dead carp.

I addressed exactly who I intended to, both of the people I quoted. Him for making the flawed statement, and you for agreeing with it and quoting it as evidence against me. This really isn't a complicated concept here.

Well, it must be fairly complicated, because it's going over your head. Of course, like most trolls, you refuse to accept even the smallest of failures, and you will scream, whine, and stamp your little booties until the board closes.

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.

There is nothing 'first FPS ever' here, you fucking lying peice of dogshit. You yourself admitted this would service a modern realistic FPS. Once again: Troll.

No, of course we're not going back to "first FPS ever." We'll just forget the fact that your FPS proposal is lacking a simple feature that is considered mandatory in any decent modern FPS, the ability to open doors. We're not talking about someting nitpicky like not having 5 different alternate fire modes, each with a separate key. You can't leave out basic features like that and still call it a modern FPS.

Again you fucking lie and bullshit. God you're such a little fucking fanboy Troll. Like every comic-book retard I've ever had to deal with. First you say 'Modern, realistic FPS', then it's 'First FPS ever', and now where are you shoving those goalposts, you pus-smeared little fuck-face? Do you know how many games managed to acheive door opening with this array of buttons?

No, of course not. You're a fucking fanboy troll, and nothing existed prior to the PS2 and X-Box.

The only thing that has changed is the reason for leaving it out. It used to be "we don't have enough processing power to include this complicated feature", now it's just "our hardware design morons forgot to include enough buttons to add it."

Which is why even early consoles could implement opening doors and context-sensitive stuff, despite your outright lie. As usual.

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?"

You have clearly suffered yet another blow to your head; I addressed jumping, troll.

Fine, I concede, you are the superior debater. I named the wrong missing feature. Instead of jumping, you leave out an equally basic and equally mandatory feature, the ability to open doors and activate other items. You know, the "use" key that every FPS in recent memory has included.

The context-sensitive button? You could always just remove crouching and use that. Or just have it activated by a D-pad button, as most context-sensitive applications require a moment of pause in-universe anyways.

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.

You lying little trollop. You see me go on about the inherent limitations of a console, then use that as your argument?

Good, then we agree. Consoles have an inherent limitation. Therefore the solution is to try to fix that limit, not make it even worse. Instead of making a less-limited system, the revolution's designers just pretend their flaw is actually a feature.

You are now pretending the flaw is number of buttons, when it isn't. Nice try, fucktard troll. Strawmen get you no-where with me. They might on whatever fanboy site you prefer to post at, but not here.

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!

God yes, back we go 'Oh noz, less buttonz inherently bad, even if I can only provide proof for FPS', which suck ass on Consoles anyway!'

In other words, you need a complete control listing of every modern game to prove that four buttons is too few.

You wouldn't know how to prove a point if you were given an encyclopedic guide, you insipid inbreed. Every one of your complaints has been an attempt to shoehorn modern FPS design into it, continuing your ass-pulled cart-before-horse mentality.

And nice strawman, turning "four buttons is too few" into "less buttons is inherently bad." Removing buttons isn't always a bad thing, but in this case, it is.

You apparently can't recignize mocking. Not surprising; you can't recignize your own fallacies.

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

No, you've just been screeching how this is suicide, how no good game could be built for this...

So it's not design suicide if poor controller design results in having only a third of the good games that would otherwise be produced. Because hey, as long as there's at least one good game, it's worth the money to buy it.

Cart-before-horse once again. You couldn't debate if you got a tutor.

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.

So they cannot accept straight ports. Whoop. De. Fuck. You are once again resetting to your standard, idiot-ass ways of cart before horse. No programmer creates the design first and THEN looks at the hardware.

Who said anything about straight ports? And I'm aware they're going to look at the hardware first. And then all the designers with ideas for more complex games are going to move to other systems, giving the exact same problem I described. The revolution gets the good games that can work with four buttons. The other systems get the good games that can work with four buttons, five buttons, etc.

Your argument is dependent on the idea of straight ports, you lying fuck. There. Simple enough? Only in those cases are you ever going to encounter 'BUT MY DESIGN NEEDED MORE BUTTONZ!!!'. Anything else, you program for what you have.

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 don't actually think before you post, I see. The Rev's controller is not going to have places for extra, slapped on buttons. It's design is clearly made to be held in the manner shown, with your fingers on the buttons all the time.(Exception: D-pad)

And notice how many fingers you have without buttons. Add a second or third trigger/side button, move the d-pad where you can actually use it, and put a couple more on the attachment. There, fingers still on the buttons at all times, but now you have a much better controller.

No, you have a clunky, stupid peice of shit designed by a fanboy troll: You. You apparently have even less knowledge of ergonomics than you do of engineering basics or programming. Not surprising.

Or how about replacing that left-hand attachment with a 4x4 grid of keyboard-style buttons. You get a nice simple motion sensor part, and still have more than enough buttons to play pretty much any game type.

Because an analog stick is superior for the method of FPS already shown for the system: One which overcomes one of the basic flaws of console FPS by allowing truly independent and intuitive targetting and movement, independent of one another.

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.

Nor does it justify pumping out a dozen or two buttons just because of ignorant fanboys like you who can't actually prove a point.

You know, for someone who likes to whine about strawman arguments, you sure make a lot of them. Please tell me exactly where I demanded "a dozen or two" buttons. But I guess it's a lot easier to argue against this strawman of a 20 button controller that's a keyboard in all but name than to address the issue of the revolution having 4-6 buttons too few.

I'm mocking you, you stupid peice of shit. You are apparently even beyond that level of comprehenson.

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.

Yes, because you insist on this strawman of 'We design the game THEN we look at the hardware!!!!'. No, the average programmer is not as much of a fucking dumbass as you.

No, they say "I have an idea for a real-time RPG with lots of diverse magic." Then they look at the revolution's hardware, notice that its poor design and lack of buttons for spell keys means you'll be stuck with an awkward menu system for making your action choices. And then they move on to a different system with better control options.

Because it's completely impossible to remake BG: Dark Alliance's magic system? :lol::lol::lol:

Yep. You're an ignorant troll.

The point is, the revolution's designers have put an upper limit on the complexity of games that can be used with it. And for absolutely no gain in exchange.

Control complexity is inherently bad, you stupid peice of shit. If you understood a tenth of what you claim to about design and implementation, you'd realize that.

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).

There's no fucking legitimate argument in "YOU SAID SIMPLE, ONE BUTTON SIMPLE, HUR HUR". NEver has, never will be. It's strawmanning, it's no-limits, it's reductio ad absurdum.

Nice to see your reading level is limited to seeing "one button" somewhere in a paragraph and screaming fallacy names. If you'd actually bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see that none of those apply. I never claimed you were arguing for a one button controller. Lets dissect this argument:

No, let's not. Your fallacies are a little too stupid for me to put up with more incessant lies. Aw, hell, you're gonna do it anyways. Might as well quote your own insipid lies back at you.

Your argument: The revolution's controller is a good design because it is simple and efficient.

My proposal: Simplicity must have limits.

Total lie. Your immediate response was this:

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!

My evidence for this: A one button controller is simple, but horrible design. Any person with a bit of common sense can see this.

You employed a fallacy and pretended it was reasonable: Hallmark of a troll.

Conclusion: Simplicty must have limits. Specifically, the limit of "simplicity must not harm gameplay too much." We can't just look at simplicity alone when analyzing the design, we have to consider how getting that simplicity affects other issues.

No. The reasonable person's conclusion from your post:

You're a lying shitheaded troll, because you then defend your fallacy-spewing:

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.

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

Yes, I was exaggerating to make a point, but there is a legitimate argument in there.

Except there's never legitimate logic in a strawman.

You and any other reasonably intelligent person: I agree, simplicity has limits.

My argument: Now that we've established that simplicity must have limits, and we all agree on this point, the revolution's controller is simplicity taken too far. Four buttons is on the wrong side of the point where simplicity begins to harm the end result.

You are now stating your conclusion as a premise. Circular logic. Again.

Your reply: The revolution's controller is not too simple, because...

Done to death already. You just recite that it doesn't play modern FPS' well. Neither does any other console, because only an imbecile expects a PC FPS to work on a console.

Imbecile's like you.

Now please point out exactly where I commit a strawman fallacy by claiming the one button is your argument. And I'd really like to know how it can be a no limits fallacy when the entire point of the argument is that a limit exists!

Shown clearly, you stupid shithead. Last warning. Commit another fallacy, your non-contributions to this thread are leaving to the HoS.

I'm curious why the troll is so obsessed with buttons? I refuse to touch console FPS (unless you count Metroid, but that's not really a FPS) so I don't have that inbred obsession with more buttons that he seems to.

On my PC, I play Star Wars Battlefront with:

WASD (replaced by the analog stick)
The mouse (replaced by the motion sensor)
Mouse button 1 (fire)
Mouse button 2 (secondary)
Scroll wheel (switch weapons, click to zoom, easily replaceable by the D-pad).
G button (switch secondary)
E button (context; enter vehicle, use item, etc)


And the two non-gameplay tasks:
Tab (show stats in multiplayer)
Esc (Pause)

So WASD is replaceable by the analog stick, the mouse by the motion sensor, Mouse Button 1 by the B trigger, Mouse button 2 by A, the scroll wheel by the D-pad (up and down to switch weapons, left and right to zoom in or out; heck only one button is needed for zoom).

Z1 and Z2 are great for switching secondary and context.

Select and Start are great for stats and pause.

I'm leaving two buttons completely unused here and not using gestures or anything else (I never reload, but you could, say, pull the controller closer to you to reload? shove the controller forward to enter a vehicle or use an item, saving you another button? tilt the controller on its side to switch weapons? etc, etc)

Well, it must be fairly complicated, because it's going over your head. Of course, like most trolls, you refuse to accept even the smallest of failures, and you will scream, whine, and stamp your little booties until the board closes.

How exactly is it a failure? I corrected your mistake in presenting a flawed quote as evidence for your side. Deal with it.

Again you fucking lie and bullshit. God you're such a little fucking fanboy Troll. Like every comic-book retard I've ever had to deal with. First you say 'Modern, realistic FPS', then it's 'First FPS ever', and now where are you shoving those goalposts, you pus-smeared little fuck-face? Do you know how many games managed to acheive door opening with this array of buttons?

No, of course not. You're a fucking fanboy troll, and nothing existed prior to the PS2 and X-Box.

What the hell? You obviously have the reading comprehension of my dog. Where did you get the idea that I changed from "modern realistic FPS" to "first FPS ever?" The only time I ever mentioned "modern realistic FPS" was as an example of what a console couldn't be expected to do, because having features like auto/semi weapon modes and squad commands are best suited to a PC keyboard and mouse.

The hypothetical game was a simple modern FPS. As in, what a gamer in 2005 would expect from a quake-style deathmatch game. As in, has the basic controls that are expected of a modern FPS. Not having 15 buttons for squad commands isn't a fatal flaw in that type of game. Not having a "use" button brings it down to a much older level of FPS than can be justified in a modern game.

Which is why even early consoles could implement opening doors and context-sensitive stuff, despite your outright lie. As usual.

Which you'll notice is a step backwards, hardly a good design choice. You'll notice this context-sensitive stuff has been replaced by the superior choice of having a "use" button in every single recent FPS I can think of.

But hey, why worry about how game design has improved since then?

The context-sensitive button? You could always just remove crouching and use that. Or just have it activated by a D-pad button, as most context-sensitive applications require a moment of pause in-universe anyways.

I see. Remove a basic feature (crouching) that's expected in any modern FPS. And this is what you call progress?

You are now pretending the flaw is number of buttons, when it isn't. Nice try, fucktard troll. Strawmen get you no-where with me. They might on whatever fanboy site you prefer to post at, but not here.

I present proof that lack of buttons limits gameplay options, using RTS games as an example. First you accuse me of using your exact argument, now you say that argument is invalid. Make up your mind.

The lack of buttons was the exact issue I was refering to. Try playing an RTS without a few buttons for unit control groups. If someone tried making a game like that, they'd be torn apart in the reviews. And for good reason!

You wouldn't know how to prove a point if you were given an encyclopedic guide, you insipid inbreed. Every one of your complaints has been an attempt to shoehorn modern FPS design into it, continuing your ass-pulled cart-before-horse mentality.

I use the FPS example because it's a very popular modern game type that involves a fairly simple control layout. It's a fair standard for comparison, unlike a realistic flight sim for example, with its demand for 30 buttons.

When you design a console that isn't capable of playing one of the most popular game types, that's clear proof that your poor design work is limiting the gameplay options available.

You apparently can't recignize mocking. Not surprising; you can't recignize your own fallacies.

I see. So it's mocking when you do it, but a fallacy when I do it. Nice to know we're debating by objective standards here.

Cart-before-horse once again. You couldn't debate if you got a tutor.

How is it cart-before-horse? Any competent game designer is going to look at the hardware available as the first step in "can it be done" thinking. This already happens, as proven by the absence of some game genres in the console market. The only difference is the revolution has an even stricter limit on what can be done.

Your argument is dependent on the idea of straight ports, you lying fuck. There. Simple enough? Only in those cases are you ever going to encounter 'BUT MY DESIGN NEEDED MORE BUTTONZ!!!'. Anything else, you program for what you have.

It's completely independent of straight ports, unless you consider "lets make an RTS" to be a straight port. Which it isn't by any sane definition of the word port, since we're not saying "lets port starcraft over to the revolution."

And yes, I'm aware you program for what you have. The revolution is going to have some games designed around its unique feature, and that's it. Sure, some of them might even be good ones. But limiting your options so much when you're already losing market share is a pretty stupid decision.

No, you have a clunky, stupid peice of shit designed by a fanboy troll: You. You apparently have even less knowledge of ergonomics than you do of engineering basics or programming. Not surprising.

I see, so my mouse is a clunky, stupid peice of shit designed by a fanboy troll? It's smaller than this revolution thing, and puts 5 buttons and a scroll wheel within easy reach without moving my hand.

If you can't design a controller that puts more than two buttons within easy reach of one hand without using poor ergonomics, you've got no place in a discussion about design quality.

Because an analog stick is superior for the method of FPS already shown for the system: One which overcomes one of the basic flaws of console FPS by allowing truly independent and intuitive targetting and movement, independent of one another.

A problem which needs the incredibly complicated solution of putting an analog stick next to the extra buttons. There, problem solved. You have the analog stick and enough extra buttons to support a much wider range of gameplay options.

I'm mocking you, you stupid peice of shit. You are apparently even beyond that level of comprehenson.

I had a good teacher. Easy to do when I have your example of taking my mocking comment literally.

So which is it? Is it acceptable to use a fallacy for mocking purposes, or isn't it? "Mine is mocking, yours is a fallacy" just shows your own bias. Or is there a secret rule that only veteran members are allowed to mock their opposition?

Because it's completely impossible to remake BG: Dark Alliance's magic system? LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing

Yep. You're an ignorant troll.

Since I've never even played that game, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by mentioning it.

But whatever game it is, the point remains. Gameplay is being forced to comply with poor controller design, rather than designing a controller with more options available.

Control complexity is inherently bad, you stupid peice of shit. If you understood a tenth of what you claim to about design and implementation, you'd realize that.

Wrong. TOO MUCH control complexity is inherently bad. A FPS that has a jump button is more complex than one where jumping doesn't exist. But good luck finding even 1% of gamers who think the simpler game is better.

Nice black and white fallacy though, assuming that there's either too much complexity or too little. You know, there's a nice middle ground where the controls are complex enough to cover all desired gameplay features, but not too complex to make finding the right button a challenge.


And I won't bother with a point by point reply to that last part, because you missed the point entirely. I was mocking you to highlight my point that simplicity has to have limits. Now once everyone agrees with this (unless you really do like the idea of the one-button controller), we move on to the real point of my argument, that the revolution's controller is on the wrong side of that limit.

What I said was no more or less a fallacy than "Nor does it justify pumping out a dozen or two buttons just because of ignorant fanboys like you who can't actually prove a point."

You'll notice that I DID NOT COUNT X and Y.

I'm aware of that, and I didn't either. Look at that picture, to comfortably use the D buttons, you lose easy access to A/B. Or you keep your hand on A/B, making the D buttons an awkward reach.

If we count X and Y, then it is TEN buttons. A, B, X (a), Y (b), D-up, D-down, D-left, D-right, Z1, and Z2. That's ten buttons.

No more than 4 of which can be used comfortably at the same time. For control options we have:

*Left stick + Z1 + Z2 + A + B = 4

*Left stick + Z1 + Z2 + D-buttons = 6, but losing the best trigger

*D-buttons + X/Y + maybe A/B = 8 at most, but losing the stick, and probably making the motion sensor more difficult to use

The default and most comfortable one is the first, which gives us 4 buttons.

Okay, here. Someone on another board, a so-called Master of Microsoft Paint, made this (low quality) image to show that Halo is playable on the Revolution.

Except it really isn't, because the D-buttons are too far away to be comfortably used. The problem is both lack of buttons, and lack of buttons that can be comfortably used at the same time.

On my PC, I play Star Wars Battlefront with:

WASD (replaced by the analog stick)
The mouse (replaced by the motion sensor)
Mouse button 1 (fire)
Mouse button 2 (secondary)
Scroll wheel (switch weapons, click to zoom, easily replaceable by the D-pad).
G button (switch secondary)
E button (context; enter vehicle, use item, etc)

Congratulations, you've just named 6 keys you need. The revolution gives you easy access to 4.

I'm leaving two buttons completely unused here and not using gestures or anything else (I never reload, but you could, say, pull the controller closer to you to reload? shove the controller forward to enter a vehicle or use an item, saving you another button? tilt the controller on its side to switch weapons? etc, etc)

Except gestures only work well in theory. How do you get the sensor to interpret your movement as the first step in a gesture, not a change of view? Or is it considered good design to have your view jerking skyward when you try to reload?

lPeregrine wrote:

Well, it must be fairly complicated, because it's going over your head. Of course, like most trolls, you refuse to accept even the smallest of failures, and you will scream, whine, and stamp your little booties until the board closes.

How exactly is it a failure? I corrected your mistake in presenting a flawed quote as evidence for your side. Deal with it.

You never did address the guy who made the mistake in the first place. And you're continuing to babble on about this for some baffling reason. Most likely connected to your lack of a worthwhile day job.

Again you fucking lie and bullshit. God you're such a little fucking fanboy Troll. Like every comic-book retard I've ever had to deal with. First you say 'Modern, realistic FPS', then it's 'First FPS ever', and now where are you shoving those goalposts, you pus-smeared little fuck-face? Do you know how many games managed to acheive door opening with this array of buttons?

No, of course not. You're a fucking fanboy troll, and nothing existed prior to the PS2 and X-Box.

What the hell? You obviously have the reading comprehension of my dog. Where did you get the idea that I changed from "modern realistic FPS" to "first FPS ever?" The only time I ever mentioned "modern realistic FPS" was as an example of what a console couldn't be expected to do, because having features like auto/semi weapon modes and squad commands are best suited to a PC keyboard and mouse.

What a fucking worthless liar you are.

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.

There you go citing the Squad Based Realistic FPS. A fairly modern example.

Now you lie again..

I said "simple" not "first FPS ever level primitive".

And finally to the current bullshit.

This isn't worth the effort. You were amusing briefly, but your constant repetition of exposed lies don't merit the minimal muscular movements and neuron firings needed to copy-paste your words back at you.

Yes, you're more pathetic than Darkstar.

What I said was no more or less a fallacy than "Nor does it justify pumping out a dozen or two buttons just because of ignorant fanboys like you who can't actually prove a point."

You still don't get you were being mocked, I see. You never would get such a complex thought.

In short, your basic logical failing is a repetition of cart-before-horse bullshit: That you decide what you'll do before you examine the hardware. This, of course, leaves aside your asinineand constant repetition of lies(Above, for one of the most blatant), your endless repetition of strawman distortions, and everything else. But it does show the heart of your pathetic attempts.

I leave you to some other folk who has the patience for such an empty-headed fanboy.

You never did address the guy who made the mistake in the first place.

Actually I did, by grouping the two quotes together. The reply was intended to be to both people quoted. Nice of you to keep nitpicking and insulting me for formatting it differently than you wanted.

What a fucking worthless liar you are.

Quote:
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.


There you go citing the Squad Based Realistic FPS. A fairly modern example.

What a fucking horrible reader you are.

Notice the key word there, NOT. NOT a squad-based realistic FPS. I was specifically excluding those from the discussion, because it makes no sense to complain about lack of buttons for a genre that doesn't belong on a console anyway. Those kind of games were never a part of this discussion.

Now you lie again..

Quote:
I said "simple" not "first FPS ever level primitive".

It's not my fault you can't tell the difference between the two. Simple means the core of what is expected in a modern FPS. As in, not having a button to switch between semi and auto fire modes isn't a fatal flaw, because that's not a universal feature.

If anything, it's you that's guitly of moving the goalposts. I'm talking about inability to play one type of game, you reply by redefining "simple FPS" to no longer include things like a "use" button, which is universally included in every recent FPS I can think of.

You still don't get you were being mocked, I see. You never would get such a complex thought.

Just like YOU still don't get that YOU were being mocked. You see the mocking, and you immediately take it literally and start screaming about fallacies.

My only mistake was trying to justify my arguments instead of just saying "haha, ur idiot, ur bieng mocked" like you do.

In short, your basic logical failing is a repetition of cart-before-horse bullshit: That you decide what you'll do before you examine the hardware.

And guess what, that's how it's done, at least some of the time. One of the designers gets an idea, looks at the hardware (and other factors), then decides whether the idea will work or not. It might be a very fast process (only a few seconds to realize the revolution won't support a flight sim), but it still happens.

And nice job strawmanning my "game design starts with a concept for the game" into "deciding what you'll do before looking at the hardware". But maybe in your world, someone making a comment at a design meeting is the same thing as writing a 500 page design document and getting full funding before even looking at your hardware.

lPeregrine wrote:

You never did address the guy who made the mistake in the first place.

Actually I did, by grouping the two quotes together. The reply was intended to be to both people quoted. Nice of you to keep nitpicking and insulting me for formatting it differently than you wanted.

You're just an imbecile then, assuming that someone not involved in our exchange was addressed.

What a fucking worthless liar you are.

Quote:
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.


There you go citing the Squad Based Realistic FPS. A fairly modern example.

What a fucking horrible reader you are.

No, I'm sorry. I was listing what is capable. You declared it wouldn't be simple, and you immediately said you meant 'Simple deathmatch', not 'Squad based'. Any literate individual will associate this to mean you are referring to this being sufficient to a modern realistic FPS.

In short, it is once again on you the fault falls. You'll deny it, in the more repetitious and boring pile of dogshit you can possiby make. But it remains what it is.

Notice the key word there, NOT. NOT a squad-based realistic FPS. I was specifically excluding those from the discussion, because it makes no sense to complain about lack of buttons for a genre that doesn't belong on a console anyway. Those kind of games were never a part of this discussion.

So you basically can't use hte language you're typing in.

Now you lie again..

Quote:
I said "simple" not "first FPS ever level primitive".

It's not my fault you can't tell the difference between the two. Simple means the core of what is expected in a modern FPS. As in, not having a button to switch between semi and auto fire modes isn't a fatal flaw, because that's not a universal feature.

Projection now. God you're a boring peice of shit. You'll continue on this facade of an argument, screaming how your list of features is inviolate, how if you don't have an FPS with them, the console is a failure.

If anything, it's you that's guitly of moving the goalposts. I'm talking about inability to play one type of game, you reply by redefining "simple FPS" to no longer include things like a "use" button, which is universally included in every recent FPS I can think of.

What's this? Another set of total lies? Yep. I can name off easy ways to play a FPS; how do I know? The tech demo included such! You just constantly redefine it into 'Simple', 'First ever FPS', and other outright bullshit in your frantic, desperate attempt not to lose a point.

You still don't get you were being mocked, I see. You never would get such a complex thought.

Just like YOU still don't get that YOU were being mocked. You see the mocking, and you immediately take it literally and start screaming about fallacies.

'I'S NOT BEING MOCKED! YOU IS!' Okay, you go back to the playground now. The adults are debating here.

My only mistake was trying to justify my arguments instead of just saying "haha, ur idiot, ur bieng mocked" like you do.

So it wasn't mocking, it was an argument. You can't even make your posts consistant.

In short, your basic logical failing is a repetition of cart-before-horse bullshit: That you decide what you'll do before you examine the hardware.

And guess what, that's how it's done, at least some of the time. One of the designers gets an idea, looks at the hardware (and other factors), then decides whether the idea will work or not. It might be a very fast process (only a few seconds to realize the revolution won't support a flight sim), but it still happens.

That is only how it is done for straight ports and utter, totally oblivious dumbasses like you. Any real programmer knows to do otherwise. I know this because I've done programming.

And nice job strawmanning my "game design starts with a concept for the game" into "deciding what you'll do before looking at the hardware". But maybe in your world, someone making a comment at a design meeting is the same thing as writing a 500 page design document and getting full funding before even looking at your hardware.

Lying bullshit, again. You're the one saying 'Our concept needs X buttons and you don't have it'. Repeatedly. Showing this to be cart-before-horse thinking is not a strawman.

But hey, kid. Keep at it. You can't even get your lies straight in one post.

Honestly, can anyone take anyone seriously when they simultaneously say:

'I wasn't arguing, I was just mocking! My mocking just failed because I tried to justify it's argument..'

and..

'I said people start with design choices and then go to the hardware because that's how it sometimes happens! And it's a strawman to say they make design choices before moving to hardware!'

The statements contradict themselves; a sure sign of a flailing troll unable to work out which path leads to victory.