Do modern games require too many buttons?

[Sarge]

It's a necessity. Until there are better interfaces to play games, more buttons are a necessary evil.

Case in point: I just finished up Street Fighter 2010, as y'all know. And that's a game that really needed a few more buttons to free up the control scheme. Complexity for complexity's sake isn't good, but if a game's vision requires it, by all means, go for it.

Now, I do think we've probably hit an upper limit for what's really possible or feasible with a standard controller, so we're going to need to see some other novel input devices. The Wii remotes step in the right direction, but obviously aren't completely sufficient.

[Gunstar Green]

It really depends on the genre and the game itself. I can't think of modern games in general requiring too many buttons. I like my platformers simple, I like my simulations complex. You'd possibly find old-school PC gamers complain about the opposite, modern games requiring too few buttons due to being designed for both PC's and home platforms.

I can think of cases in the 8 and 16-bit eras, mostly arcade or PC conversions, where the controls of the time were too simple. Sometimes this was solved with specialty controllers but that could be costly and inconvenient.

I see today's controllers as sort of a compromise that takes into account everything we've learned about game design over the past several decades. Most do a good job of juggling different genres, both simple and complex. Sometimes there's still a need for a specialty controller, but it's often more for a specific experience than a requirement.

[samsonlonghair]

This makes me think of the Frankenstein creations from the "Build Your Own Arcade" crowd with four eight-way joysticks, a four-way joystick just for pac-man, ten dozen and one buttons, a trackball in the center, a steering wheel, and a keyboard for good measure.
http://mame-cabinet-archive.koenigs.dk/mameshame.htm

I see today's controllers as sort of a compromise that takes into account everything we've learned about game design over the past several decades.

Except for the playstation four controller. That takes everything we learned about game design up to the invention of the Dualshock in 1997, then adds a touchpad and a share button.

[isiolia]

Except for the playstation four controller. That takes everything we learned about game design up to the invention of the Dualshock in 1997, then adds a touchpad and a share button.

Also has built-in gyroscope (just like a Sixaxis or DS3) for motion controls, and can use the light like a Move in conjunction with a Playstation Camera.

Offhand, Blue Estate tries to make it work for motion controls even without a camera, but it basically means "calibrating" what pointing it at the screen is, and moving the cursor around relative to that.

[samsonlonghair]

Touché. I was mostly just joking about the Dualshock.

In regard to the opening post, I do think we have too many buttons for most games. I think the Saturn 3D controller nailed it. An analog stick, a D-pad, six face buttons, two analog triggers, and a start button are all you need.

What a shame more games didn't make use of this controller.

[J T]

Buttons can unnecessarily complicate things, so it's good to employ context sensitivity so that the same button can serve multiple functions. At the same time, too much context sensitivity is confusing, so it's good to employ more buttons. There's a balance

[Exhuminator]

At the same time, too much context sensitivity is confusing, so it's good to employ more buttons.

Proper context sensitivity requires a layer of intuition that is at once transparent and privy to abject player agency. It exists, but such game design / programming prowess requires a highly skilled developer.

A small example of what I'm talking about. I recently played Gears of War and am now playing Army of Two. In Gears if you want to take cover to the side of a door frame and peek out and shoot from it, that requires many button presses. It required pushing a "take cover button" near the door frame, and then pushing another button to lean out from the door frame, and then pushing the "ready your aim" button, and then pushing the shoot button. But in Army of Two if you're standing near a door frame and press the "ready your aim" button your avatar will automatically step to the side of the door frame and take cover within and then lean out on their own. Then all you have to do is push the shoot button. It's beautifully simple, never intrusive, entirely intuitive, and completely smooth. That's the kind of context sensitivity difference I'm talking about.

[Nintendork666]

I love when a developer values context sensitivity over using every button possible on the controller.

This is an excellent point. Really though, the modern controller is pretty much perfect for nearly every game experience.

[J T]

I am not a huge fan of Gears of War because it was too macho and too brown, but I liked the gameplay and part of that was the convoluted steps you mentioned. It doesn't flow as well, but it feels more risky to duck out of cover when you need to make so many motions to do so. And much like the Mechwarrior games mentioned earlier, with such big burly guys in giant metallic warrior suits, it almost felt like the controls should be more cumbersome to convey the sense of size. It's like the argument that came up recently in another thread about whether Super Mario Bros would have been better with a 'walk' button instead of a 'run' button because you need to run the majority of the time, so why not have run be the default? It was argued, and I would agree, that it is better to have a run button because it conveys an appropriate sense of tension to force you to hold down a button to go faster. Likewise, I think some games benefit from more complex control systems because it makes them feel right for the context of the gameplay.

That said, I haven't played Army of Two, so I don't have much of a basis for comparison. Also, I do agree that context sensitivity isn't used enough. I'm just making the counter-point that it isn't always better.

[MrEco]

No.

In my opinion, modern controllers could have more buttons where possible. Perhaps a couple more face buttons, like the black and white buttons on the old X-box controller. Also less context sensitivity please. Honestly it feels insulting when a game has a single button for jump, get into cover, climb over cover, sprint, melee, hold your breath while aiming down the scope, etc etc. I know not that many games actually go so far overboard with the context sensitivity, but when they do it can really spoil a game for me. As far as I'm concerned I have working fingers, and a working brain, so if you give me two separate buttons for two separate actions I'm not going to get confused.