Emerging tech conference looks at controller design
Tom Armitage delivered an interesting session at O'Reilly's Emerging Technology Conference last week called "From Paddles to Pads: Is Controller Design Killing Creativity in Videogames?" and we make money not art has taken the trouble of giving us a rough transcription. Armitage's presentation focused on the complexity of the modern gamepad, while finding salvation in the Revomote and various novelty controllers (Guitar Hero, Donkey Konga, Singstar Karaoke, Buzz, even Steel Battalion).
Most interesting is that Armitage is not in the games industry, but rather a longtime gamer and, by extension, one who is presumably very comfortable with said designs. If you agree with Mr. Armitage's assessment, then Nintendo might lead their revolution from the inside out, attracting disaffected gamers as well as newly engaged onlookers.
[Thanks, Eliot]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Spencer @ Mar 13th 2006 9:11AM
I wonder if this conference is sponsored by Nintendo....
Ive Been Jipped @ Mar 13th 2006 9:20AM
"Is Controller Design Killing Creativity in Videogames?"
The quick answer is no.
The long answer is capitalism and business logic is killing creativity in videogames. There were plenty of 'creative' titles back in the days of Amiga, Commodore 64 et al when developers only had eight directions and a fire button to work with, but then those were the days of bedroom coders, not EA-style behemoth corporations churning out the games nowadays. Revolution will allow for more innovation, sure, but suggesting stifled creativity is a result of pads is a bit far fetched.
As a sidenote, I don't know of any disaffected gamers who find today's pads a problem, besides some specialist genres (ie: using arcade sticks for 2D fighters or whatever).
C. Grant @ Mar 13th 2006 9:25AM
You apparently have never met Tom Armitage then.
Kye @ Mar 13th 2006 9:57AM
I agree with #2 Jipped.
Its not the controllers but the capitalism thats stiffling creativity.
However I must also disagree with a point you made, because when I first saw a second analogue stick, I was confused as to what the hell you could possibly use it for.
But the controllers are (more than) crucial for a games/systems success. Here are two examples:
1: My mom isn't a gamer. She would probably faint if you put a gamecube or 360 control pad in her hands. Yet when I first got Nintendogs she figured out how to do things before I did. The reason? - The control interface was simple and self explanatory.
2: The first time i tried 13 on the GC - I played for about 10 seconds then asked a friend if I could change the control layout. He said no. I tossed the pad away and called it a f*cking shit game. Reason - the interface was retarded (note, not the control pad, but the logic). Yes im aware this was not a problem with the controller itself, but you get my drift.
My point - make games controllers easy to use and you get gamers. Make it complicated and you lose gamers.
Make it stupidly simple and you get loads more gamers.
How many of you out there have ever wished that pushing the pad to the right/left or raising it quickly would affect the in-game response? *he raises his hand*
This blog was not endorsed by Nintendo in any way.
Your friendly neighborhood Kye.
:)
Paul @ Mar 13th 2006 10:04AM
I completely agree with Jipped. There have been, and contrary to all the "sky is falling" people, and will continue to be creative titles for all systems across the board. It only makes sense that there are standard controllers for systems because no one could afford to have a special controller for all the different genres of games. And, no matter how much I love Madden and Fight Night, it is because of the EA's of the world that there is very little creativity or maybe more accurately risk taking, because there are creative things that are done but only within a certain range. It has become too costly and competitive to make a game that will probably fail in the hope that it becomes huge but that is why independant games and now the XBL Arcade have become so important because now there are venues for change and risk taking to take place. Oh, and just to jump on the bandwagon, Nintendo definitely loved this whole thing.
Eirik @ Mar 13th 2006 10:29AM
big heads kill/whore out everything. not a single genre is safe!
Just like Rare was raped. All the creative developers left because they didn't get to do their thing. Does anyone remember what happened when Rare let it's devs loose? we got Conker:BFD! but noooooo, let's not do that again. obviously good games aren't priority.
EatingPie @ Mar 13th 2006 10:33AM
To answer with "Controller!" or "Capitalism!" is far too limiting IMHO.
Halo 2 was an incredibly great game, and Halo 2 upped the bar with Cinematics and storyline. Same old controller and same old (Microsoft) capitalism.
Certainly both elements put parameters -- or restrictions -- on gaming. "You HAVE TO make a game work with THIS controller." That's a restriction. "You HAVE TO make a game for THIS MUCH money." Another restriction. We can even add "you HAVE TO have the game out by Christimas." YAR.
The only solution would be to move to a completely communist society where there are no time and money restrictions. And we've already seen how well that works out! :)
-Pie
Sense @ Mar 13th 2006 10:40AM
Rare can make whatever they want I'm sure. It's not like Microsoft came up with Kameo. It would have been just as mediocre on the Cube.
Anyway, I am a (somewhat) disaffected gamer that is excited about the Revolution. I am not put off by the complexity of control schemes (I may be one of the few gamers who thought GUNVALKYRIE kicked ass) but I am put off by all the similar game designs out there.
Capitalism is to blame for much of this, but control could be considred a huge factor as well. It may not be the cause, but Nintendo getting developers to use a new control will force them to try different things.
So, control may not be the issue, but it could be the solution.
I think it says a lot that many gamers clock more hours on their DS than PS2/Xbox/360.
I'm still addicted to DOA4 though :)
Thomas Crymes @ Mar 13th 2006 10:41AM
I've not recently sat down and thought that games are stagnating because of a controller. The idea that capitalism itself is causing stagnation is interesting. On one hand the publishers want to release a game that is proven and one that will sell. As long as the title sells, they keep shoveling it to us.
If people get desperate, they go and try something different. Once and awhile, a publisher will take a chance on a different game that has a lower budget, and if it hits, they look like a big innovator.
Much like gambling, if you take enough risks you lose all of your money. And since current games require multi-million dollar investments, people only want to spend their money on things that have a good chance to return their investment plus some.
The real innovation will come when people start making original games for XBox Live Arcade. Right now there are only a few, but the investment to return ratio looks to be very good. So I predict we are going to see a lot of innovative games on XBLA. And if one of those successful titles features a new an innovative approach to something, a company will take a chance on a bigger budgeted game that implements those innovations.
J B Cougar @ Mar 13th 2006 10:41AM
While I do not believe the controller design is solely to blame for today's dismal lack of video game sales and, I do think it is somewhat dishonest of companies calling this the "next gen" when the controller hasn't changed since the days of the PSone. So far, the only thing "next gen" has stood for is "shrinking audience, higher prices."
Call me too much of a traditionalist or a fanboy all you want, but when I was younger part of the excitement and appeal of a new system was the "controller reveal." So far today, that feeling's been pretty dead on arrival.
And, since no one has actually used the Revo remote with an actual game, you really can't call me or this guy in the article a fanboy. Time will tell if it works. First impression however -- at least Nintendo looks like it's trying to revive the industry.
Ive Been Jipped @ Mar 13th 2006 10:55AM
"The real innovation will come when people start making original games for XBox Live Arcade. Right now there are only a few, but the investment to return ratio looks to be very good. So I predict we are going to see a lot of innovative games on XBLA."
Yeah, I thought about that. However, I know from talking to a friend who works in indie development that Microsoft has really, really strict guidelines on what it will eventually greenlight for Xbox Live Arcade release. I can't vouch for the kind of game he was touting to Microsoft (could be Custer's Revenge 2: The, er, Revenge for all I know) but it seems a real shame if what he says is true. I think to have that kind of publishing model on console would work wonders, sparking creativity and allowing great ideas to flourish outside the boardroom and Men In Suits saying "I don't understand... a pink dog singing songs?" It would probably be as close as we'll ever get to having bedroom coders again, as close as we'll ever get to finding a new Jeff Minter.
In any case, it might not be true. Microsoft's quality control can't be that stringent if a cancer of a game like Crystal Quest gets through (yes, I spent 800 points on it and yes, I'm slightly miffed about it. So what.)
PodMonkeys @ Mar 13th 2006 11:17AM
I think all these fancy mechanical pencils, and pens with their scientific inks are stifling the creativity of artists. :P
#4 makes a great point. It doesn't matter how good the controller is, if the logic behind the controls is completely confusing. An good UI can make a world of difference. I don't know how many "good" games I've turned away from just bacause the UI/control scheme was not very good.
SuicideNinja @ Mar 13th 2006 11:19AM
I agree in a sense; a lot of websites lose users because the interface isn't simple enough. However, I think that a lack of risky and/or compelling games is more to blame than the controller. If someone wants to play, they'll learn to use a controller. Just like most people want to drive, so they learn how to do that. My girlfriend hated Halo for a long time, but she decided that it would be better to play than to complain. She adjusted quite quickly, and now enjoys the game often.
Anyway, I can say this: one of the big reasons I hate playing my PS2 is because of the controller. Not to say I don't like it for some games. Any game that was designed for a d-pad is best with the PS2 controller. The Megaman X Collection for example. Since I refuse to give Sony any more money unless deserved (i.e. God of War), I purchased it for the Gamecube (Nintendo deserves the money) and just use an adapter so I can have a PS2 controller's d-pad.
Current games are generally designed with analog sticks in mind; FPS, sports, action/adventure. In that case, the PS2 controller really shows its age. The location of the analog sticks (and their resistance) is horrid. Which leaves me appalled that the PS3 controller will keep the same crappy design.
The Gamecube's controller was near perfect; those triggers just needed to be designed better (and a more accurate d-pad would have been nice). The revo remote looks to have these problems solved with an interesting new way to play. But I still find the XBox 360's controller layout and feel the best.
Sense @ Mar 13th 2006 11:45AM
I'd love to see a return of industry sponsored indie developement. Does anybody else remember the consumer Playstation development kit? I don't remember what it was called, but it cost like $600-800 US and Sony would host contests to see who could make a game worthy of industry backing. SEGA was considering a similar publishing model before the Dreamcast failed (RIP Dreamcast).
I know that development costs are huge nowadays, but what about letting people develop simple games like The Incredible Machine/Geometry Wars. The best ten games get slapped onto a compilation disc or added to XBLA.
Better yet, a new kind of platinum game line-up. Instead of basing it on sales, make it a line of games that nobody bought the first time around. Call it Sleeper Hits or something.
Sigh...it's a pipe dream. It would be neat though.
Scooby Doo @ Mar 13th 2006 12:02PM
This is a tough one, but I would definitely say that the current input devices play a factor in how our games are designed and could easily limit a developers choices for what features to put into their games. In that sense, I think they absolutely can stifle someone's creativity.
When I read the article, it definitely came across as one man's opinion and I would have liked more information and more detail on HOW controller design affected development of at least one or two games. I felt the article better demonstrated that refining (or creating new) console interfaces has great potential for bringing in new gamers. What it really makes me stop and wonder, is what we've missed out on. In other words, how many great ideas have been cut from a game during development because there is simply no good interface for it on a standard console gamepad? There must have been a few since we've seen hardware designed for specific games like he points out in his article. I know there are other things you can do like add a mouse and KB for a FPS but that is not the developer's target audience so just because there is hardware that solves a current limitation, I think a lot of developers would still cut it from a final game if there aren't a lot of people opting for a different control scheme.
I do agree that the biggest factor for uninspired and cookie-cutter games is because of current business models, but think about it from the developer's point of view. Being aggressive and going out on a limb could actually put you out of business. Even if it doesn't, a couple of bad quarters could at least force you to start laying off staff, plus you have to show some kind of stability if you are a publically traded company. If we continue to buy the games, it's only good business sense to give us what we 'appear' to be asking for so I'll always argue that us gamers have to be the one to drive innovation in our market.
I do have to applaud Nintendo for at least trying something different with both the DS and the Revolution. It should be noted that Nintendo has given developers a way out because you don't HAVE to use the Microphone or Touchscreen on the DS and it sounds like Nintendo is going to offer some form of standard controller (probably the Cube's), if they want to design a traditional game on the Revolution. The big question is whether or not we'll actually see some new and innovative ideas come out from their next-gen system, or if the developers will use the crutch that Nintendo has given them.
m3mnoch @ Mar 13th 2006 12:44PM
i feel like the matter is really 'evolution' vs. 'revolution.' and, by revolution, i'm not talking about the nintendo console. i'm talking about a sudden and divergent sea change to a product.
the revolution controller counts for sure as a 'revolution.'
that being said, the games industry as a whole is very, very evolutionary. sure, lots (well. relative 'lots' of course.) of games are revolutionary, but the entire industry is this slow moving ship in the night.
when did the fps genre break? how long before it became a fairly representative in the industry? how long before that started to evolve? system shock? thief?
what i'm talking about, i guess, is that controller design needs to be evolutionary for sufficiently wide support in the game industry as a whole. if you break that rule, you end up with something like nunchaku.
no. it's not hardware design that's stifling the industry. (warning! more symptom/cause crap ahead)
hardware interface design is merely a symptom of the bigger issue of mainstreaming games. in order to get down to the lowest common denominator 2 big factors come into play.
1) hardware that can work for the largest number of games/genres possible.
2) slow evolutionary changes to interface hardware simply for the sake of usability standards.
no. mainstreaming video games is what is causing all of the crap in development. do people complain about how most of the music out there is crap? yes. do people complain about how most movies are crap? yes. do people complain about how most stuff on tv is crap? yes.
mainstreaming media requires evolution and not revolution as a whole. revolutionary concepts slowly creep into the mainstream conciousness, but not at any 'reasonable' clip.
it's joe q. public simultaneously killing video games and giving life to video games. just like any other major form of entertainment media out there.
m3mnoch.
Guitaroo Masta @ Mar 13th 2006 3:50PM
In my opinion I think that to suggest that creativity is being stifled by controller design, is ridiculous.
There are many great games that use todays controllers.
Gitaroo Man for the PS2 (you may have guessed by looking at my name) is a great example of how well the controllers can be used to create an immersive and fun playing environment, with great results.
Paul Gale @ Mar 14th 2006 2:48AM
No matter what people say, I will always personally prefer a good videogame controller over a mouse and keyboard. A good controller, be it from Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, or Sega connects me more with the game than a mouse and keyboard. Good controllers, I feel, become an extension of your body almost, whereas a mouse and in particular, a keyboard doesn't have a distinct feel to it. You don't grasp a keyboard, it doesn't mold into your hands; yes, you can be very accurate with a mouse and keyboard, perhaps moreso in some genres, but the evolution of console controllers is fare more exciting in my mind. PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 will/are offering updated controllers, (and so far improved in the case of Xbox 360), and that's fine. But I'm really looking forward to Nintendo Revolution and it's controller setup; it'll be more than just a prettier GameCube, but will offer entire new ways to play games...very exciting.
Paul Gale
1up.com
mocax @ Mar 14th 2006 8:52AM
I spend more time looking for buttons on the controller than looking at the screen....
Prof-KOS @ Mar 15th 2006 2:07PM
If you want a great example of how controllers are too comlicated look at any of the GC Mario Party games. There are always a ton of minigames that focus on hitting a specific button when prompted. While I don't find that too tough, I have friends that are hopeless at it. And this is the GC controller, arguably the simplest of the current gen.
I miss the simplicity of flipping through a book to find out that A is jump and B is fire or run, etc... The truly creative games designers can make an incredibly complex game work with less buttons and a simpler controller. That is what I beleive this article is getting at. Not just the quality of the game and software innovation, but the fact that making options too easy stifles the creativity. Some of these designers have never had to truly think around an input issue.
The best example of a game creatively making control simple and intuitive, yet with incredibly complex results is Soul Caliber 2. That's a lead I'd love to see followed.