17th September 2004, 1:36 PM
Honestly, I've never ACTUALLY "forgetten it was only a game", or LITERALLY "thought I WAS the character". I mean, those are just expressions and all, and I know no one actually feels that, but you know, thought I'd say that.
Simplicity, complexity, do what works for the game you are going for.
I agree with you ABF, in some games, the mouse interface is the best option. It's not about making the game "too easy". In no way does having to move around manually aid the challenge of these games in any way shape or form. In a console RPG for example, you can't even MOVE your characters during battle. You just tell them what to do and watch them do it and they decide exactly where to move by themselves. Chrono Trigger STILL rocks though, and in part it could be BECAUSE of that (having to deal with movement would be a burden that wouldn't affect challenge or fun in any way).
In some games, half the gameplay is in the direct control of your character though. I mean, in Zelda for example, it would NOT be Zelda at ALL if the interface was such that you could just click to go "over there" and watch as Link automatically makes that perfect jump across one platform to the other, climbs the ladder, and just starts attacking the enemy in an automatic timed fasion, with you just clicking to change his attack style. Sure, it could still, in theory, be fun, but it would be a totally different game and kill the gameplay. (A teacher I had once actually suggested they DO this to Zelda, to which I enquired exactly how many Zelda games the guy had played, the answer was "a couple minutes of the one with the flute". He was a hardcore PC gamer, not a bad thing but it puts a bias on console games that is unfair, to say the least.) I mean, just imagine if archery suddenly became automatic, select the enemy and watch Link fire with "hit" and "miss" messages. It would be horrible! I mean, the point is YOUR aim, not making choices based on Link's "aim" stat! If they made such a drastic change, the entire way you battled that stalfos would change to something totally different! Instead of you having to dodge and see the opening in the enemy's attack and fly in there hoping it doesn't raise it's shield in time (perhaps just guarding until the enemy lunges with a particularly drawn out strike, and dodging JUST in the nick of time to run up behind the enemy and slice it's back with a jumping slash), you are now purely the tactician of the battle, basically telling the player HOW to fight but not exactly direct control of each moment. It's now the standard "polite taking of turns" as they smack each other until one falls down, no "dodging and feeling the rush", rather, you decide to tell the character TO dodge and watch it get carried out on your character's turn.
It's vastly different. I love RPGs, and I love Zelda style Adventure games, but they are totally different beasts and a big PART of that is the control method. That IS the gameplay a lot of the time. However, not EVERY game needs to be controlled like Zelda to be good. If Fire Emblem controlled like Zelda, it wouldn't be a strategy game, it would be a Zelda game. You could theoretically win every single battle your forces got in not based on overall tactics, but on your quick reflexes, intuition, and fighting skills in the individual battles. That's fun, I love Zelda after all, but it's NOT tactics, and that's exactly what Fire Emblem IS. (Incidentally, Fire Emblem doesn't let you directly control your characters at all, but hey, I still feel pretty immersed.)
In that vein, a PC RPG, for example, does not need to control like Zelda to be good. Being able to directly control your character is helpful, helpful enough that just about all the ones I've played do allow that (standard wasd walking), but it doesn't affect gameplay or even immersion. I didn't feel like I was "cheating" or "being cheap" or "being led by the hand" in any fasion just because I told the character to walk to the door and open it by itself rather than actually directly navigating my character and pressing the action button. Such direct control is not where the gameplay lies. It would even work in Final Fantasy VI. Telling Terra to walk over there by herself woudln't hurt it in any way really, because there's no "live action" style gameplay in that game, with only a few somewhat fun diversions (following the light in the tunnel, but even that was a memory game, not a "keep up with Dante" game, so clicking wouldn't cheapen it in any way, unless of course you were allowed to use a follow command on the light thing :D). Really, the gameplay lies in the choices you make, so the control scheme's main role is in making it as easy to realize your decisions as possible. I wouldn't want to have to suddenly hit X at just the right moment as the "fight" option swings back and forth past a "reticule" of some sort just to be able to attack in every battle, because that's not the sort of game this is! Save something like that for a small mini-game. Instead, just let me pick the attack command, and then from there I'll pick the various spells or stances or special abilities I want to use.
Again, if I'm playing Super Mario Sunshine, the whole game is based around live events, heck it IS one. All the gameplay is in direct control and how skilled you are at jumping from platform to platform, bouncing off walls, and finding hidden stars or whatever whereever you can. Any automation hurts the gameplay rather than helps it. In an RPG, the game is NOT about that. Indeed, direct control is there just so you can align yourself just right in those tight spots or make easier turns. It's not about that perfect timing for the jump, making sure you don't jump too soon, that sort of thing. It's about thinking your way through, deciding WHAT to do and letting the game do it for you after that. Thus, they concentrate totally on giving you lots and lots of choices and the control scheme HAS to be as quick as possible so you can spend your time worrying about what spell you need to cast when you engage that enemy up ahead. It's about your player character's existing stats, and you in the real world have to make decisions on what they should do given your various character's abilities. RPGs, by their nature, loose a bit of immersiveness this way (ALL of them), but it's fine, because it's STILL great fun, and great gameplay! Again, only being able to directly control your character wouldn't create any challenges with the gameplay, just some frustrations in navigation.
However, I see many times when the indirect control DOES kinda cheapen things. For example, there are times when you can click on an area within your sight when you have no idea how to get there, and your character just automatically navigates the correct path. This however does not discredit the whole method, just the execution in this instance. If the pathing AI was set up so that it couldn't automatically path through areas you hadn't explored yet, or where no path has been discovered by you the player, this would be fixed, and we could all get on with our lives.
Adventure games, the PC kind... Ah yes, there's an example of where a point and click interface is BETTER than a direct control scheme. Grim Fandango (and yes, even Monkey Island 4, for all it's failings), were fun games, but I had to fault the control scheme. Really, the whole direct control thing just didn't add anything to the game for me, and more often than not, it actually made things frustrating (alligning my character "just so" so it FINALLY looks at the thing I want for example, rather than moving my cursor to the object I want to manipulate and clicking on it). Strategy games are another where indirect control is FAR superior, in all senses, than any direct control. In fact, I've yet to see a single strategy game that HAS direct control of any sort.
Simplicity, complexity, do what works for the game you are going for.
I agree with you ABF, in some games, the mouse interface is the best option. It's not about making the game "too easy". In no way does having to move around manually aid the challenge of these games in any way shape or form. In a console RPG for example, you can't even MOVE your characters during battle. You just tell them what to do and watch them do it and they decide exactly where to move by themselves. Chrono Trigger STILL rocks though, and in part it could be BECAUSE of that (having to deal with movement would be a burden that wouldn't affect challenge or fun in any way).
In some games, half the gameplay is in the direct control of your character though. I mean, in Zelda for example, it would NOT be Zelda at ALL if the interface was such that you could just click to go "over there" and watch as Link automatically makes that perfect jump across one platform to the other, climbs the ladder, and just starts attacking the enemy in an automatic timed fasion, with you just clicking to change his attack style. Sure, it could still, in theory, be fun, but it would be a totally different game and kill the gameplay. (A teacher I had once actually suggested they DO this to Zelda, to which I enquired exactly how many Zelda games the guy had played, the answer was "a couple minutes of the one with the flute". He was a hardcore PC gamer, not a bad thing but it puts a bias on console games that is unfair, to say the least.) I mean, just imagine if archery suddenly became automatic, select the enemy and watch Link fire with "hit" and "miss" messages. It would be horrible! I mean, the point is YOUR aim, not making choices based on Link's "aim" stat! If they made such a drastic change, the entire way you battled that stalfos would change to something totally different! Instead of you having to dodge and see the opening in the enemy's attack and fly in there hoping it doesn't raise it's shield in time (perhaps just guarding until the enemy lunges with a particularly drawn out strike, and dodging JUST in the nick of time to run up behind the enemy and slice it's back with a jumping slash), you are now purely the tactician of the battle, basically telling the player HOW to fight but not exactly direct control of each moment. It's now the standard "polite taking of turns" as they smack each other until one falls down, no "dodging and feeling the rush", rather, you decide to tell the character TO dodge and watch it get carried out on your character's turn.
It's vastly different. I love RPGs, and I love Zelda style Adventure games, but they are totally different beasts and a big PART of that is the control method. That IS the gameplay a lot of the time. However, not EVERY game needs to be controlled like Zelda to be good. If Fire Emblem controlled like Zelda, it wouldn't be a strategy game, it would be a Zelda game. You could theoretically win every single battle your forces got in not based on overall tactics, but on your quick reflexes, intuition, and fighting skills in the individual battles. That's fun, I love Zelda after all, but it's NOT tactics, and that's exactly what Fire Emblem IS. (Incidentally, Fire Emblem doesn't let you directly control your characters at all, but hey, I still feel pretty immersed.)
In that vein, a PC RPG, for example, does not need to control like Zelda to be good. Being able to directly control your character is helpful, helpful enough that just about all the ones I've played do allow that (standard wasd walking), but it doesn't affect gameplay or even immersion. I didn't feel like I was "cheating" or "being cheap" or "being led by the hand" in any fasion just because I told the character to walk to the door and open it by itself rather than actually directly navigating my character and pressing the action button. Such direct control is not where the gameplay lies. It would even work in Final Fantasy VI. Telling Terra to walk over there by herself woudln't hurt it in any way really, because there's no "live action" style gameplay in that game, with only a few somewhat fun diversions (following the light in the tunnel, but even that was a memory game, not a "keep up with Dante" game, so clicking wouldn't cheapen it in any way, unless of course you were allowed to use a follow command on the light thing :D). Really, the gameplay lies in the choices you make, so the control scheme's main role is in making it as easy to realize your decisions as possible. I wouldn't want to have to suddenly hit X at just the right moment as the "fight" option swings back and forth past a "reticule" of some sort just to be able to attack in every battle, because that's not the sort of game this is! Save something like that for a small mini-game. Instead, just let me pick the attack command, and then from there I'll pick the various spells or stances or special abilities I want to use.
Again, if I'm playing Super Mario Sunshine, the whole game is based around live events, heck it IS one. All the gameplay is in direct control and how skilled you are at jumping from platform to platform, bouncing off walls, and finding hidden stars or whatever whereever you can. Any automation hurts the gameplay rather than helps it. In an RPG, the game is NOT about that. Indeed, direct control is there just so you can align yourself just right in those tight spots or make easier turns. It's not about that perfect timing for the jump, making sure you don't jump too soon, that sort of thing. It's about thinking your way through, deciding WHAT to do and letting the game do it for you after that. Thus, they concentrate totally on giving you lots and lots of choices and the control scheme HAS to be as quick as possible so you can spend your time worrying about what spell you need to cast when you engage that enemy up ahead. It's about your player character's existing stats, and you in the real world have to make decisions on what they should do given your various character's abilities. RPGs, by their nature, loose a bit of immersiveness this way (ALL of them), but it's fine, because it's STILL great fun, and great gameplay! Again, only being able to directly control your character wouldn't create any challenges with the gameplay, just some frustrations in navigation.
However, I see many times when the indirect control DOES kinda cheapen things. For example, there are times when you can click on an area within your sight when you have no idea how to get there, and your character just automatically navigates the correct path. This however does not discredit the whole method, just the execution in this instance. If the pathing AI was set up so that it couldn't automatically path through areas you hadn't explored yet, or where no path has been discovered by you the player, this would be fixed, and we could all get on with our lives.
Adventure games, the PC kind... Ah yes, there's an example of where a point and click interface is BETTER than a direct control scheme. Grim Fandango (and yes, even Monkey Island 4, for all it's failings), were fun games, but I had to fault the control scheme. Really, the whole direct control thing just didn't add anything to the game for me, and more often than not, it actually made things frustrating (alligning my character "just so" so it FINALLY looks at the thing I want for example, rather than moving my cursor to the object I want to manipulate and clicking on it). Strategy games are another where indirect control is FAR superior, in all senses, than any direct control. In fact, I've yet to see a single strategy game that HAS direct control of any sort.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)