Controlling: One's Feelings

As a blogger, there's only so much satisfaction one can derive from writing yet another entry in the "here's what I've been playing this week" mould. Speaking purely for myself here, the real enjoyment I get from blogging comes from picking up on trends within the community, analysing them, and trying to formulate some kind of personal response in the form of a blog post. Sometimes that trend is a specific game, either recently launched or thrust back into the public eye via a re-release or developer-related news. Sometimes that trend occupies a much wider span in the spectrum of the video game industry - we can write about gamer culture, or the "core" and "casual" markets, or delve a little deeper into a specific component of what we define as "the video game". It could be graphics, or gameplay mechanics, or story development, or even something as recently prevalent as the multiplayer's balancing in a newly-launched first person shooter. Taking one of these components, exploring my own personal feelings about it, and juxtaposing it with the perceived feelings of the community makes for a very rewarding writing experience,
 
Today, my focus is on the hot topic of video game controls, and the stigma attached to certain control schemes. In the last few months, I've noticed a lot of negativity, and even downright hatred, from Giant Bomb's community towards specific control schemes in some video games. Whether it's a franchise that stubbornly refuses to drop its employment of tank controls, a new shooter that goes against convention with its button mapping, or two games within the same genre that approach their control schemes in radically different ways, there always seems to be a significant amount of forum angst directed towards gaming controls. Are these variant control schemes really examples of "bad" controls?
 
One of the driving forces behind me writing this blog is the time I've spent this year with games that rely on tank controls. Earlier this year I played through Silent Hill 2, and one of my primary concerns going into the game was how I was going to cope with its "outdated" movement mechanics. Almost as soon as I'd gained control of James Sunderland and began steering him through the spooky town of Silent Hill, I realised that my fear was misplaced - tank controls turned out to be a perfectly viable means of getting around in that game, and by the time I reached the end I couldn't imagine playing it in any other way. More recently I trudged my way through the GameCube remake of Resident Evil, and found myself feeling the same way. I think it's unfair for tank controls to be dismissed as archaic. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say that there's still a place for them within the industry even now. With the advancements made in character animation, tank controls could certainly be made to look better on screen, and Resident Evil proved that there's scope to modernise tank controls with its inclusion of Defence Items. With the right developer and the right modifications, I think tank controls could definitely be made relevant again.
 
Another subset of games that seem to be forever under attack are those games which feature third- or first-person shooting, but whose control schemes don't match up to the universal "shooter" configuration. This generation in particular, an unwritten law seems to have been established that all shooters must use the left stick to move, the right stick to look around, the right trigger to shoot and the left trigger to aim down the sights - if a game deviates from that, its controls are bad. The obvious recent example to cite here is Deadly Premonition, a game which has come under repeated fire on these forums for its "terrible" controls. While I've not played Deadly Premonition myself, I've been led to understand that its control scheme isn't too far removed from that of Resident Evil 4 - left stick to move and aim, shoulder button to raise weapon, A to fire. Five years ago, this apparently made for an intense, visceral combat experience worthy of universal critical acclaim - acclaim that still resonates to this day, I might add. Today, it's a "poor design choice" and feels "broken". Personally I fail to see how this can be the case.
  
Maybe it's a problem rooted in gamer culture, and its warped sense of entitlement. As a group, gamers generally tend to have outrageously selfish expectations for the products they invest their time and money in. I've found myself on the verge of blogging about gamer entitlement several times before, but decided against it. Out of a specific context it's an argument that rings rather hollow, but in terms of the debate on controls it rears its ugly head pretty clearly. Gamers have come to expect every game out there to adhere to the unwritten rules of the universal control scheme. Gamers are entitled to that luxury, and God forbid should anybody go against the grain in case they confuse them or force them to adapt to a different control layout. If a game does break with tradition, it controls "poorly" and is dismissed. Personally, this isn't an attitude I've ever felt myself. I can remember playing numerous adventure titles on the original PlayStation as a child, and never took any issue with having to adjust to a new control scheme when I picked up a new game. More recently, when making the leap from Pro Evolution Soccer to FIFA 11, I initially struggled with the differences between their controls, but I didn't bitch and moan about it - I kept an open mind and persevered. You know what? It really didn't take long to adjust.
 
An obvious solution to this problem is to give players the freedom to map their own controls. On one level, the gamers who don't mind picking up a new control scheme can dive straight in, while those who would prefer to stick with what they know can adjust the buttons accordingly. To be honest, though, I think developers need to find a healthy balance between these two extremes - one that allows for minor adjustments that will in turn allow the player to avoid minor irritations, without going the whole hog and allowing for complete button mapping. There's nothing wrong with including options to invert camera controls and other such things, but removing the rigid notion of a game's default control scheme is almost like removing a chunk of its story. Often, a game's fundamental control scheme is a big part of what gives it its identity. It's hard to imagine trying to play a game like Metal Gear Solid 2 with anything other than that default button layout - X to crawl, Square to fire, L2 and R2 to cycle through items and weapons... it's as built in to our memories of the game as its boss battles or its batshit crazy story.
 
I think what I'm trying to get at here is that fundamentally, there isn't really any such thing as a "bad" control scheme. Gamers simply need to be a little more tolerant and accept difference in controls as neither right nor wrong, but just another way of doing things. If developers can hit that ideal balance between customisation and rigidity, the result is usually a control scheme both memorable and unique enough to subvert those unwritten rules and stand on its own strengths. I think that's all I've got to say on the subject. I just hope it doesn't come across as too incoherent. Thanks very much for reading, guys. I'll see you around.
 
 
Dan
 
--- 
 
Currently playing - Mass Effect 2 (X360)