11th July 2005, 10:20 PM
Well considering what they did with the GBA and the GCN...
Their idea of promoting innovation was to FORCE game designers to make do with less buttons. Did it work? I'm afraid that I have to conclude that no, it didn't. Behold the GBA, home of SNES ports. Remember that they actually didn't include an X and Y button specifically because they wanted to prevent a situation where nothing but SNES ports were released. The idea was, even if they did port old games, they would need to really think about how to make it work, and in the mean time might really make some big innovations in it so it's not really a port at all.
Too bad Nintendo themselves provided the evidence that it didn't work...
They just kept porting old SNES games THEMSELVES. Most of them had next to nothing added to them. Some of them actually had enough button settings in the original that they had to work to change it. Hence, we get LTTP working pretty much flawlessly (though the sword being on the lefter button was a bit awkward to get used to), but they didn't actually change the controls in such a way as to make it better. They added stuff (oh did they add stuff, Four Swords for example), but it was controller agnostic.
In the end, reducing the controller doesn't promote superior controls. Making superior controls promotes that. Survival of the fittest and all that rot.
On to the Gamecube. So, they decided on the amazing unique face button setup. Didn't take too long to recognize it for what it is, a 6 button layout minus two buttons. It's only unique if you think in terms of 4 button layouts, which you shouldn't, because we've moved on.
Now sure, companies don't always use, or need to use, all those buttons. That doesn't mean they shouldn't BE there though. I can communicate in a game like Phantasy Star Online without using a keyboard fairly well, but in the end typing allows much more accurate communication even if it is slower in some ways, and that accuracy provides, in the long run, FASTER communication.
All taking away some controls does, in the end, is reduce the complexity of games. Now, simple games aren't worse than complex ones, but neither are they inherently better (different than the standard engineering principle, but true, complicated game mechanics can be fun too, BECAUSE of the complication, if you enjoy puzzlin' stuff). So, if Nintendo's main goal is making simpler games, that's fine. I'm sure I'll love them, and they may likely be some of the best games in the next gen. However, what they are doing is preventing other companies from making more complicated games that may actually need those extra controls due to a huge number of instantly needed functions, like in an FPS for example, where EVERY button is completely needed and can't be reduced to "hold this and press this at the same time" and expect to be simpler. So, they are reducing the possible 3rd party games, at LEAST, if they go this route.
What's the harm in adding extra buttons? If they really have an all important goal of reducing the controls to force creativeness, just put that in the mission goal! Say, right there from the start, "okay, you can only use these buttons and these sticks for controls". There shouldn't be an issue there. It's not like nonfunctional buttons somehow get in the WAY. Has an abundance of controller buttons ever actually got in the way when playing a game? Well, okay those terrible controllers that have buttons raised far too high come to mind, but aside from those...
Moving on, Kirby and the Canvas Curse only used the touch screen (and the start button to pause, since that's quicker than any touch button on screen could hope to be, and pausing needs to be quick), and it was GREAT! However, you will note that at no point were they hindered by EXTRA buttons on the DS. No, they reduced the button requirements without actually reducing the buttons on the system just fine. It's... it's not hard.
By the way, I couldn't read that article ABF...
You see, sometimes when you go to an article at IGN, you get this big ad and you have to click to skip it. Every now and then, you click on the skip and get to ANOTHER ad box you have to skip.
I got roughly 40, FORTY, of those things in a ROW. So, I said "screw it". They must have altered the probabilities or something. That's just unlikely... Though, the law of truly large numbers does allow for it... still....
Okay I finally got through (what is the deal with IGN these days?).
I saw the entire quote regarding simplification. From what I can see, they are doing it because people not into games, according to their insane hypothesis, aren't playing because too many buttons are too confusing.
Shades of Apple?
Seriously, that's the argument the Apple apologists use when people say "hey, that mouse doesn't have enough buttons to be useful, support for multibutton mice is nice, but, why don't they include one like that with the system?". They say, "well, two mouse buttons can be confusing to a computer novice". That... is stupid. There are things I have trouble explaining to people who don't know how to use a computer yet, but two buttons having two functions has NEVER been one of them. I've never had a person panic about multi button mice before. Heck, even if they use the mouse for a while before I explain anything, they get the hang of it and figure out pretty intuitively that if there are two buttons, they must do different things, and after using them, oh, yeah they do do different things.
That whole line is bull, and until they do the proper testing to shut me up and prove that hypo right, I'll stick by that.
Their idea of promoting innovation was to FORCE game designers to make do with less buttons. Did it work? I'm afraid that I have to conclude that no, it didn't. Behold the GBA, home of SNES ports. Remember that they actually didn't include an X and Y button specifically because they wanted to prevent a situation where nothing but SNES ports were released. The idea was, even if they did port old games, they would need to really think about how to make it work, and in the mean time might really make some big innovations in it so it's not really a port at all.
Too bad Nintendo themselves provided the evidence that it didn't work...
They just kept porting old SNES games THEMSELVES. Most of them had next to nothing added to them. Some of them actually had enough button settings in the original that they had to work to change it. Hence, we get LTTP working pretty much flawlessly (though the sword being on the lefter button was a bit awkward to get used to), but they didn't actually change the controls in such a way as to make it better. They added stuff (oh did they add stuff, Four Swords for example), but it was controller agnostic.
In the end, reducing the controller doesn't promote superior controls. Making superior controls promotes that. Survival of the fittest and all that rot.
On to the Gamecube. So, they decided on the amazing unique face button setup. Didn't take too long to recognize it for what it is, a 6 button layout minus two buttons. It's only unique if you think in terms of 4 button layouts, which you shouldn't, because we've moved on.
Now sure, companies don't always use, or need to use, all those buttons. That doesn't mean they shouldn't BE there though. I can communicate in a game like Phantasy Star Online without using a keyboard fairly well, but in the end typing allows much more accurate communication even if it is slower in some ways, and that accuracy provides, in the long run, FASTER communication.
All taking away some controls does, in the end, is reduce the complexity of games. Now, simple games aren't worse than complex ones, but neither are they inherently better (different than the standard engineering principle, but true, complicated game mechanics can be fun too, BECAUSE of the complication, if you enjoy puzzlin' stuff). So, if Nintendo's main goal is making simpler games, that's fine. I'm sure I'll love them, and they may likely be some of the best games in the next gen. However, what they are doing is preventing other companies from making more complicated games that may actually need those extra controls due to a huge number of instantly needed functions, like in an FPS for example, where EVERY button is completely needed and can't be reduced to "hold this and press this at the same time" and expect to be simpler. So, they are reducing the possible 3rd party games, at LEAST, if they go this route.
What's the harm in adding extra buttons? If they really have an all important goal of reducing the controls to force creativeness, just put that in the mission goal! Say, right there from the start, "okay, you can only use these buttons and these sticks for controls". There shouldn't be an issue there. It's not like nonfunctional buttons somehow get in the WAY. Has an abundance of controller buttons ever actually got in the way when playing a game? Well, okay those terrible controllers that have buttons raised far too high come to mind, but aside from those...
Moving on, Kirby and the Canvas Curse only used the touch screen (and the start button to pause, since that's quicker than any touch button on screen could hope to be, and pausing needs to be quick), and it was GREAT! However, you will note that at no point were they hindered by EXTRA buttons on the DS. No, they reduced the button requirements without actually reducing the buttons on the system just fine. It's... it's not hard.
By the way, I couldn't read that article ABF...
You see, sometimes when you go to an article at IGN, you get this big ad and you have to click to skip it. Every now and then, you click on the skip and get to ANOTHER ad box you have to skip.
I got roughly 40, FORTY, of those things in a ROW. So, I said "screw it". They must have altered the probabilities or something. That's just unlikely... Though, the law of truly large numbers does allow for it... still....
Okay I finally got through (what is the deal with IGN these days?).
I saw the entire quote regarding simplification. From what I can see, they are doing it because people not into games, according to their insane hypothesis, aren't playing because too many buttons are too confusing.
Shades of Apple?
Seriously, that's the argument the Apple apologists use when people say "hey, that mouse doesn't have enough buttons to be useful, support for multibutton mice is nice, but, why don't they include one like that with the system?". They say, "well, two mouse buttons can be confusing to a computer novice". That... is stupid. There are things I have trouble explaining to people who don't know how to use a computer yet, but two buttons having two functions has NEVER been one of them. I've never had a person panic about multi button mice before. Heck, even if they use the mouse for a while before I explain anything, they get the hang of it and figure out pretty intuitively that if there are two buttons, they must do different things, and after using them, oh, yeah they do do different things.
That whole line is bull, and until they do the proper testing to shut me up and prove that hypo right, I'll stick by that.
"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)