Bad Controls, Bad Design?
February 10th, 2009Ludwig has a well-reasoned and plausible defense of the Resident Evil series’ control deficiencies, which he notes are intentional (suspense can’t be created as effectively if you’re blowing zombies away in between roadie runs like Gears of War). And he’s absolutely correct that it wouldn’t be the same game if it overemphasized movement and action instead of resource management. Ludwig argues that gamers tend to confuse this deliberate design choice with poor implementation, which is inappropriate, and I tend to agree with him.
That said, it got me to thinking - is a game whose basic nature is dependent on hampering the player’s ability to manipulate it fundamentally flawed, as a design? Consider this thought experiment:
Imagine that you played an RTS like C&C. However, the jets you obtain later in the build cycle proved to be extremely powerful in gameplay, and so the developer, in order to balance units more effectively, set them to move at the same pace as tanks. The effect is useful: the player arguably has a more enjoyable experience because the game is neither too easy (when he gains the jets first) nor too hard (when his opponent does). But the player has a very valid counterargument; the jets - and indeed, the whole RTS - are attempting to represent a situation that is, if not identical to the real world, at least highly analogous to it. We know that if the word “jet” has any real meaning other than as an arbitrary label, it must move faster than a tank, because that is what a jet is.
In this way, the developer has changed the game so that it is more successful in delivering a fun experience, but fails in delivering a plausible one. Their actions were inconsistent with the rules of the world that they created, and so, I think, ultimately a design failure. (Note that there were actions that could have been taken with similar effect but more plausibility - jets could be pushed back further in the build cycle, the player could be provided with weapons that would be more effective at defending against it, or even eliminated altogether for some reason. Either of these would be both consistent and useful.)
Similarly, I think RE is much more susceptible to this type of complaint. We know how people move, and probably know more about how this should work intuitively than many topics. That’s why it strikes us as so wrong when we hear that we can’t move properly, or shoot and move at the same time - we know people should be able to do this. If we can’t, the game is all too clearly sacrificing normalcy for gaming convention, and in doing so just shows us much more clearly that it is simply a game. Immersion disappears a little more.
If the only way Capcom can make RE work as a survival horror game is by handicapping typical human movement, then I think RE controls might be a design failure as well as a design choice. (After all, a horror movie scares us without making all the people slow and twitchy.) Are there ways to fix this that would be more consistent? I’m sure there are, although I’ll save my thoughts on that for another post.
Posted in Geoff, PC, PS3, Xbox 360 |
February 11th, 2009 at 9:23 am
It’s a good thought experiment. Some of my thoughts:
“it is more successful in delivering a fun experience, but fails in delivering a plausible one.”
When one goal conflicts with the other, which way do you go? Plausibility or fun?
“We know how people move, and probably know more about how this should work intuitively than many topics. That’s why it strikes us as so wrong when we hear that we can’t move properly, or shoot and move at the same time - we know people should be able to do this.”
I disagree. I think the reason it feels so wrong to so many is not because of some inherent understanding of what people can do, but because of years of shooter controls we’ve become used to.
Shooter controls, I might add, that are also completely implausible. For example, running backward and strafing just as fast (or nearly as fast) as we run forward? This is completely implausible, yet no one is outraged by it. Why? It’s what we’re used to in games.
“Immersion disappears a little more.”
Again, I disagree. I think immersion disappears for SOME because they are actually fighting the controls, rather than just “playing”. Its when the controls become natural that they become less of an impediment to immersion. When I played RE4, I wasn’t nearly as “into” console FPS’s. So I only stuggled with the controls for about 20 minutes. After that, I got used to it. It controls just like RE5 (just as implausibly) yet RE4 was more immersive than any I had ever played, and perhaps more so than any I have played since.
“If the only way Capcom can make RE work as a survival horror game is by handicapping typical human movement, then I think RE controls might be a design failure as well as a design choice.”
First, I don’t think it’s the ONLY way they can make it work. I just think it’s the way the WANT to do it. I think they are pleased with the game it creates, albeit, one you find implausible. I’m not sure this constitutes any kind of failure, particularly when you realize that plausibility is not a function of many gamers understanding of a fun or immersive game, or even that immersion is necessary to a game for it to be good.
You mention horror movies, yet this is exactly what they do. Sure, horror movies may not make people slow and twitchy, but they certainly make them incredibly stupid, even implausibly so. How often have you watched a horror movie only to have the protagonist do something you would NEVER do, (go outside to investigate a sound, reach their hand into a dark spot, etc). Only to have them put in a “horror” situation. You’re sitting their thinking, “Don’t go outside you idiot” yet there they go. Or, how often does a horror movie use camera angles to cut off OUR view of the surroundings to conceal some fright until the last minute. Obviously a person can look arond and shouldn’t be surprised by whatever is just off camera, yet somehow they are surprised, along with the audience who’s view was controlled for the effect. This doesn’t make the movie a failure, the director has to set up sequences somehow and there are certain conventions we’ve come to accept. Same goes with RE4/5, but we just haven’t accepted the convention (control scheme) they’ve chosen. At least, a vocal minority of hardcore gamers haven’t.
I think, due to the massive critical success of RE4, they probably chose to mimic it for RE5. I think they built the game around it. Then, as the population of hardcore gamers was distilled into longtime FPS gamers, they found a problem releasing those same controls.
Having said all that, I don’t like the controls either. But it’s not for the same reason. I have no problem stopping to shoot. My problem is that the thumbsticks feel so inadequate when I’m used to the Wii-remote aiming of RE4 Wii, which was pure bliss and multiplied my immersion tenfold. If this game was released on the 360 with Gears of War controls and the Wii with RE4 Wii controls, I would buy it on the Wii in a hot second.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
It is what it is… While I think it’s interesting to think about “good” vs “bad” design decisions, the only thing that matters in the end is whether the experience it creates in the end is a compelling one. I think a “bad” design choice is one that makes the game worse, while a “good” design choice makes the game “better”.
What I think you’re suggesting is a trade-off of sorts… that Capcom is sacrificing plausibility to obtain the desired effect that they want, which is, of course, true. But if you’re already admitting that what Capcom has done has resulted in a more fun product, then it seems that the net effect of the decision is positive. I guess the alternative is that there’s some other sort of “mental cost” associated with having a less-plausible game which ends up bringing the overall “fun” level down.
I guess I’m just saying that the decisions should be based on what’s fun (or I suppose what’s consistent with the developer’s “vision”, though hopefully their “vision” is to make the most compelling game possible). If a design decision is so implausible that it detracts from the overall “fun” of the game, then it’s a negative. But if it actually makes the game better, then I don’t have a problem with it. I think people can make valid arguments for either side in RE5’s case, and I’m sure that a great deal of it is related to people’s personal preferences.
And I completely agree with you, cisco… RE4: Wii makes RE5 controls almost feel like a joke, though I fear that RE5 wouldn’t survive the port over to the Wii in a satisfactory way… If only the 360 or PS3 had released a Wii-like pointer device…
February 12th, 2009 at 9:02 am
I agree. I’ve said before, not sure if it was here. My ideal console would be one with 360/PS3 graphics, Wii/PS3 reliability, 360 online for free and a Wii-Motion-Plus controller option. I would still buy RE5 made with a juiced up RE4 engine and Wii controls. I think we’ve talked about it on here as well, but I hate what “next gen” has done to Chris Redfield. Speaking of plausibility, Chris’s physique is ridiculous in RE5. It hurts the game for me.