Support NeoGAF

[Chronospherics]

This is something I've been thinking about recently and I wanted to know your thoughts.

One of the most common usability issues in 3D games, and particularly those that take place in the third person perspective, has been the result of a troublesome camera. From Banjo Kazooie and Spyro, to The Last Guardian and Bloodborne, the 3rd person camera has been the source of a number of usability issues. Specifically, obscuring the players view as it clips into the environment, or colliding with objects and making it difficult to get the ideal perspective.

The root cause of these issues, is that the camera is controlled by a code. An automated system which is designed to place the camera in the correct position, for the player to see. In Spyro the Dragon this was called 'active camera', but today it's the standard, the camera typically, automatically follows your character.

• In Yooka Laylee this system collides with environmental objects, often obscuring the player from view, leaving them behind.
  
• In Dark Souls, the camera becomes obscured by monsters that pursue you, and other environmental attributes.
  
• In Gravity Rush, the controller becomes stuck inside walls, again, obscuring the player from view.

You could argue that the root cause of these persistent issues, is that control of the camera has been removed from the player, and given to the game. So naturally, it makes mistakes. If you take the players control away from what is a relatively complex system, there's always going to be some dissatisfaction with the results because the issues cease to be the players fault. If the player accidentally clips through some shrubbery in a first person shooter, it doesn't end up being frustrating because players are much more likely to see the issue as being their responsibility, and something they can intentionally avoid in the future, with control.

More specifically, in many games, this issue stems from the fact that the controllers face buttons have been used for crucial, and persistent gameplay interactions. The most basic examples are the jump, or dodge buttons being mapped to the face buttons on a controller. As a result, the player loses the opportunity to control the camera with the right stick, and therefore, the game has to take charge of the camera, and these issues occur.

So, then why do game devs persistently place core gameplay functions on the face button? Why aren't there accommodations for people that want to control the camera themselves? Most of these games do not even support alternative control layouts that support this. I think the answer is familiarity. In Super Mario, and games alike, you jump with the A button, and therefore, when moving to Super Mario 64, it made sense to jump with the A button.

On Super Mario 64, this didn't matter, because the n64 controller didn't have a second analogue stick, so the camera wasn't controllable by the player, regardless of the layout. It made sense to place jump onto the face buttons once again, because there were no clear advantages of not doing so.

However on platforms that featured a twin stick layout, placing crucial functions onto the bumpers, could have allowed the player much more articulate control of the camera, and resolved many of these issues. I suspect this didn't happen simply because of familiarity, there was an established convention that you jump with X, not L1.

However, it's ridiculous that today, this issue still persists for the sake of familiarity, and no alternative options are provided.

If you take the controls to a game like Blood Borne, and remap them so that you can sprint with L3 or L1, suddenly the entire experience becomes more usable. The player can retain control of the camera at all times during a fight, significantly reducing the number of issues that occur.

In Gravity Rush, because Gravity kick and throw are on the face button, you're continually switching between the left thumb stick (to aim) and then pressing square to hit your target. Switching from the thumb stick to the face buttons gives your target opportunity to move, it feels clumsy, and counterintuitive. If you remap kick (square and circle) to the bumpers, you get to keep control of the camera. The game flows considerably better as the player can pick up objects and throw them at enemies, while retaining control of the direction they're facing at all times, it's arguably a considerably better experience, yet one that's not supported by the game due to some idea that the bumpers exist to serve some tertiary function that doesn't include the characters basic actions.

In both examples, these issues harmed the reception of the game (with both critics and players criticising the poor camera control), an issue which could have been resolved with an alternative control layout. And it's not just these, but hundreds of third person character driven action games that feature similar issues.

The only way to break out of this cycle is to offer players alternative options. While players see the current layout as familiar, and sensible relative to games past, the appeal would quickly shift if it was readily observable that alternative layouts offered a better user experience.

I'm not alone with this view either, it's rare, but not uncommon that I've seen players with similar suggestions. Though I always find it to be a little odd when community members respond with 'Oh, just claw the controller', as if that's any less of a persistent usability issue.

It's 2017 and we've been producing 3D games for 20 years. Issues surrounding the third person camera are one of the most common usability issues negatively impacting the user experience of 3D, third person games. There's a relatively simple resolution, if an unfamiliar one. Yet still, it saddens me to say that I fully expect to see thousands of players playing Monster Hunter World, compensating the poor camera control by clawing the controller.

What have your experiences been with third person camera controls, and do you think there is value in facilitating player control of the camera as a means of alleviating these issues?

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

I personally think Souls bindings are a deliberate choice to force the player to risk losing sight of the enemy when rolling/sprinting. I mean, they could quite easily be mapped to not do this.

 

[nynt9]

Just use a claw grip. I do all the time.

 

[MayMay]

Just use a claw grip. I do all the time.

Bingo.

 

[Chronospherics]

I personally think Souls bindings are a deliberate choice to force the player to risk losing sight of the enemy when rolling/sprinting. I mean, they could quite easily be mapped to not do this.

I think that's an interesting argument but the game fails to achieve that if players simply claw the controller, or remap it, to get around the issue. If they wanted to do that, then they could add a deliberate mechanic to feature this.

The issue is also in, The Last Guardian, Yooka Laylee and Gravity Rush 1 and 2 off the top of my head. Where again, I don't really think it adds anything to the experience.

Just use a claw grip. I do all the time.

Discussed this in the OP. I can claw in the same way as anyone else, but anyone arguing it as an ergonomic way to hold the controller is being disingenuous. Additionally, it doesn't resolve some of Gravity Rush's issues, where desirable functions during camera control are placed on Square (more difficult to claw to).

 

[mullet2000]

Just use a claw grip. I do all the time.

The point is that's not ergonomic, or even necessary with different mapping.

 

[manueldelalas]

On Super Mario 64, this didn't matter, because the n64 controller didn't have a second analogue stick, so the camera wasn't controllable be the player, regardless of the layout. It made sense to place jump onto the face buttons once again, because there were no clear advantages of not doing so.

Wat

Edit: To expand on the point.
One of the fist controllable cameras. The buttons on the controller are yellow, smaller and called C-buttons or "Camera" buttons. The N64 controller was built around Mario 64.

Mario 64 was a pioneer on this, and even had two camera modes, the behind Mario camera, that was the standard of 3D games at the time, and the Lakitu camera, which is the standard we use today.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

I'm pretty sure Mario 64 was the first controllable 3D camera in a game

 

[Chronospherics]

Wat

Not in a direct sense, no. You have shortcuts to do certain things, like recentre it. You have a camera 'mode' you can shift into, or shift between positions with the c stick, yet it's hardly an ideal layout, and the lack of an analog stick gives the player very poor control, comparably. It's obviously not an ideal layout, hampered by its hardware (though understandable within its era), but not a huge issue in the game, mostly due to level design.

Either way, the camera controls in Mario 64 are not the point. It has the same issues as the other games, where it's difficult to do something such as jump, and reposition the camera at the same time. I don't have any issue with that game, it's the games releasing in 2017 that still have the same issues that are a little bothersome.

 

[Glass Shark]

Automatic camera will always exist to some degree. I don't think anyone wants full manual control of the camera. And in most games, automatic camera works just fine. Most of the time it's not crucial to be able to move the camera at the same time as performing "critical functions" as you mentioned. In the games that it is (shooters), primary methods of controlling the game are already on bumpers and triggers.

I don't really think this is as big of an issue as you're making it out to be.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

Beginners and those inexperienced with 3D games are not comfortable doing a ton of camera work while moving their character around. Design in the 90s had to take that into account and any game which wants to appeal beyond the hardcore base today does as well.

It's not really acceptable to say that a Mario game will have a camera that needs constant maintenance.

 

[James Scott]

I don't think TLG's camera would improve if you could used the right stick all the time.
Also, limiting control inputs to the 4 buttons on top seems...limiting?
Though it's an interesting observation

 

[jotun?]

It's more of a controller design problem than just the way buttons are mapped. The fact that you can't use half of the buttons on a controller while aiming, regardless of what they're specifically mapped to, is a big design flaw.

We have 10 fingers. Controllers with many functions should be designed to make use of more fingers so that more functions are accessible simultaneously.

 

[NimbusD]

I'm pretty sure Mario 64 was the first controllable 3D camera in a game

Lol yeah. Idk about first but it definitely was controllable to an extent. In fact what do you think the c for c buttons or c stick stood for?


But on topic, it does make sense to map action buttons to l and r buttons, or it would actually be cool to have a controller with face buttons on the back you could hit with your fingers.

 

[drotahorror]

I think one of my biggest problems with cameras is auto-center. The Souls games are notorious for this (maybe DkS3 had a toggle?). I can't stand it when I'm trying to look to my right and move forward at the same time and I constantly have to fight the camera from automatically rotating to behind my back.

Stop it or give me the option please.

 

[manueldelalas]

Not in a direct sense, no. You have shortcuts to do certain things, like recentre it. You have a camera 'mode' you can shift into, or shift between positions with the c stick, yet it's hardly an ideal layout, and the lack of an analog stick gives the player very poor control, comparably. It's obviously not an ideal layout, hampered by its hardware (though understandable within its era), but not a huge issue in the game, mostly due to level design.

This is wrong. Go play Mario 64 again.

 

[tsundoku]

I don't really explicitly disagree with your opinions as opinions but game controllers seem to work out fine for me. Here's a disparate series of bullet points that didn't really form a cohesive post:

1. Claw Grip is Fine and Usable. In most games i can seamlessly adjust on the fly without even realizing i'm doing it.

2. Dark Souls is almost there, they just need to do away with the joke that is having four attack buttons on the top so they could put dodge / sprint up there and not have to take your fingers off of the sticks

3. When I emulate old games and especially RPGs where you mash Confirm / Cancel / Menu a tonne, I always map confirm and cancel to L1/R1

4. You're supposed to rotate your camera to your next target in Gravity Rush while you're flying at the target you just aimed at. Gr2 ignores this problem with better enemy collision and the homing attack form where you can just kind of mash and it'll figure it out with soft lockon.

5. Games that put dodge or specific inputs like Hardkick on the triggers really piss me off. Considering the absurdly small number of games that actually use Analog on triggers I really wish every controller came with those "Pro Gamer" switches to turn them back into L2 R2 buttons

6. Super Mario 64 would have these fantastic sections where they would pull the camera out and act like a Resident Evil game on 2d controls where you still couldn't control the camera but you could actually see what you were doing. This "Heresy" has been banished because it leads to having to create more carefully enclosed environments in a games industry where they want you to be jammed in tight hallways with super high res textures running at 21.6 fps

7. Players should have a way to control the camera in every game in some form of control scheme, even if the game uses the rightstick for something novel they need to give you like a rotate and tilt ps2 era L1,R1,L2,R2 control.

8. Cameras like The Last Guardian's atrocity need to go away forever

 

[Yoshi]

I feel it is a good choice to leave jumping on a face button in a platformer, since you need to do it quickly and precisely and nothing is more precise and quick on your hand than a thumb. Additionally, it is not a good idea to rotate the camera mid-jump most of the time. However, sometimes it makes alot of sense to deviate from traditional controls, e.g. in Rayman Origins / Legends, it works extremely well to have run on a shoulder button.

 

[Chronospherics]

I don't think TLG's camera would improve if you could used the right stick all the time.
Also, limiting control inputs to the 4 buttons on top seems...limiting?
Though it's an interesting observation

I wouldn't say you need to limit the controls to four buttons at the top, but if you have a button that the player is frequently using, especially in moments where they may also wish to move the camera, then it makes sense to consider a better layout.

 

[LinkSlayer64]

Claw grip sucks.
The issue isn't the NES, the issue is that controllers haven't evolved to be more erganomic to allow for these types of changes. An ideal controller would be a split type, like wiimote, but with buttons on the side of the controller that you can press with each of your fingers.
One of the VR setups is doing this, right?

 

[James Scott]

I have noticed a lot of Japanese games don't use R2/L2 or ZR/ZL very often.
Like FFXV uses R2 to...use items?
Just put dodge roll there or block.

 

[base shagohod]

This is exactly why I love the Xbox elite controller so much. Not to sound like I'm advertising... I know other controllers had buttons on their backs before, but I never tried one until the elite came out.

 

[LegendofLex]

Not in a direct sense, no. You have shortcuts to do certain things, like recentre it. You have a camera 'mode' you can shift into, or shift between positions with the c stick, yet it's hardly an ideal layout, and the lack of an analog stick gives the player very poor control, comparably. It's obviously not an ideal layout, hampered by its hardware (though understandable within its era), but not a huge issue in the game, mostly due to level design.

I'm going to seize on this and say that when Super Mario 64 came out, there was no such thing as dual-analog control for it to be an inferior solution to.

It was simply the only/best solution for 3D camera control that existed on a console controller at that time.

Honestly, the problem with most of the games you listed isn't the lack of manual camera control; it's the relatively poor automatic camera design. I've played plenty of games (even plenty of similar games) where the camera isn't an issue. That's why they're the games getting dinged for poor cameras, even while other games in the same genres also map primary actions to face buttons.

I wouldn't say you need to limit the controls to four buttons at the top, but if you have a button that the player is frequently using, especially in moments where they may also wish to move the camera, then it makes sense to consider a better layout.

Except that index fingers are generally worse/less responsive than thumbs (I can't imagine rapid [non-typing] button presses with my index finger, but do it all the time with my thumbs), and have less range of motion to execute multiple actions.

I'm also not going to use any fingers but my index finger to press shoulder buttons, and I'm certainly not going to use paddles, so mapping primary actions to shoulder buttons is more limiting for me controls-wise than mapping them to face buttons. I'm generally not worried about camera position during actions like attacking and sprinting, just during normal motion. It'd be a move that actually subtracts value from the experience for me and likely most other players.

 

[Chronospherics]

I feel it is a good choice to leave jumping on a face button in a platformer, since you need to do it quickly and precisely and nothing is more precise and quick on your hand than a thumb. Additionally, it is not a good idea to rotate the camera mid-jump most of the time. However, sometimes it makes alot of sense to deviate from traditional controls, e.g. in Rayman Origins / Legends, it works extremely well to have run on a shoulder button.

This isn't true, there is strong empirical evidence to support the idea that human beings can react faster with fingers, than thumbs. Particularly, the index, ring and middle fingers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2286193

I don't think it's a huge factor either way though. Shooters shouldn't start mapping fire to R3 because it's faster, they should go with the control thats more functional, more usable (the bumpers that they already use).

I'm going to seize on this and say that when Super Mario 64 came out, there was no such thing as dual-analog control for it to be an inferior solution to.

It was simply the only/best solution for 3D camera control that existed on a console controller at that time.

Honestly, the problem with most of the games you listed isn't the lack of manual camera control; it's the relatively poor automatic camera design. I've played plenty of games (even plenty of similar games) where the camera isn't an issue. That's why they're the games getting dinged for poor cameras, even while other games in the same genres also map primary actions to face buttons.

Yes, that's what I said to begin with. It's hardware was its limitation, I don't blame the game or the hardware, it was in no way, the focus of my point, someone just brought it up.

Also, I think it's overly easy to say that 'relatively poor camera design' is the issue. How many games do you know with good camera design? Even games like Uncharted can give you a bad camera from time to time, and that game is from a developer with incredible pedigree, and a number of people working specifically, on camera programming.

You're certainly right that better cameras can be provided, but certainly for games like Gravity Rush, they wouldn't have resolved its issues, especially for games that feature large scale, dynamic open world environments that encourage the player to explore in different directions. I don't think people appreciate just how complex all the camera work actually is. Breath of the Wild does it pretty well, but lock on systems and large open spaces really help with that. Not to knock Zelda but it's pretty empty most of the time. You rarely walk past dense environments that could obscure the camera.

 

[nynt9]

I'm pretty sure Mario 64 was the first controllable 3D camera in a game

Fade to Black from 1995 had a full 3D camera before that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6lSCQLgWqM

 

[Matty77]

While I do think that in this day and age that any game that uses both sticks should have the most important/frequently used buttons mapped to the shoulders, it's not that bad for me.

Don't see why you would take your thumb off left stick to control the right one. Most face button actions can either be done without your right thumb leaving the stick if it's that important, but usually it's not. If your controlling the camera already and know what your looking for the chances are high you can trust the camera long enough to jump or whatever.

 

[Spukc]

Just use a claw grip. I do all the time.

gtfo with that shit,
glad that shit died with monster hunter on the psp

 

[Glass Shark]

This isn't true, there is strong empirical evidence to support the idea that human beings can react faster with fingers, than thumbs. Particularly, the index, ring and middle fingers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2286193

I don't think it's a huge factor either way though. Shooters shouldn't start mapping fire to R3 because it's faster, they should go with the control thats more functional, more usable (the bumpers that they already use).

This doesn't take into account controller ergonomics. Whether or not science says we can move fingers faster than thumbs, it feels faster to do it on a thumb due to the way controllers are shaped and designed completely around it. And then you have to take into account analog triggers which have long travel distances.

 

[manueldelalas]

Fade to Black from 1995 had a full 3D camera before that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6lSCQLgWqM

But in your video, the camera is always on the back of the character, always following, doesn't appear to be being controlled by the player, unless I'm missing something.

 

[muteki]

Using the gyro to aim in Gravity Rush (either on Vita or Ps4) always worked great for me.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Smarter cameras could still be designed, but I'd like another evolution of controller hardware features, like a short, mini analog nub in the center between the diamond arrangement of face buttons for the camera.

This is exactly why I love the Xbox elite controller so much. Not to sound like I'm advertising... I know other controllers had buttons on their backs before, but I never tried one until the elite came out.

Yep, having mappable rear paddles solves the issue, but it costs more to the user and takes time to relearn controller use.

 

[SmartWaffles]

Backside buttons should become a standard in the next generation of controllers.

 

[Yoshi]

This doesn't take into account controller ergonomics. Whether or not science says we can move fingers faster than thumbs, it feels faster to do it on a thumb due to the way controllers are shaped and designed completely around it. And then you have to take into account analog triggers which have long travel distances.

In fact, analog triggers would be wholly unsuited for jumping, if anything, jumping could go to LB / RB and those buttons are definitely not good for jumping due to their position (Nintendo) respectively the way they click (Xbox, PS). Maybe I am wrong with my assessment of the reaction speed, it could also have something to do with reaction speed, but due to the good experience I had with running on shoulder buttons in Rayman, I tried putting jump on RZ (Wii U) and running on LZ (Wii U) in my 3d platformer, but it definitely did not feel as responsive and nice as on face buttons.

EDIT: Also do I misunderstand the abstract of the linked study? It says:

thumb and little finger showed significantly shorter reaction times than did index, middle, and ring finger

Shorter reaction times are good for the primary (twitch) action in a game, no? Little finger is of course a nice option, but not on current controllers.

 

[Tye The Czar]

This argument makes a lot of sense. It's also why I've adopted the Controller Keyboard model for Warframe.

My left hand uses the Left Analog and Shoulder buttons for movement and jumping.
My right hand uses a mouse with 12 buttons easily accessible by thumb.

With this, switching between shooting and melee while jumping around and controlling the camera is seamless.

I would love to see new controllers that successfully have buttons activated by all 5 fingers on both hands.

Maybe if having 12 side-buttons becomes almost mandatory in the future, standard gaming controls might change.

 

[Gilby]

Backside buttons should become a standard in the next generation of controllers.

This.

They need to be a built-in feature, not a flimsy add-on like the pro controller. We have 5 fingers, let us use them!

 

[TheMoon]

I'm glad you guys saved me some typing in taking OP to school for going completely off the rails with the Mario64 camera comments.

But in your video, the camera is always on the back of the character, always following, doesn't appear to be being controlled by the player, unless I'm missing something.

it looks like you move the camera in the wider corridor spots and can technically move it everywhere, plus the free aim shooting stuff.

 

[Chronospherics]

This doesn't take into account controller ergonomics. Whether or not science says we can move fingers faster than thumbs, it feels faster to do it on a thumb due to the way controllers are shaped and designed completely around it. And then you have to take into account analog triggers which have long travel distances.

As someone that plays a lot of shooters I've never felt that it feels faster to use the analog stick. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it's probably a very subjective thing.

 

[Lupin the Third]

Shoulder buttons are more likely to fail after extended use than face buttons, which is why I think games generally avoid focusing on them (FPSes notwithstanding).

 

[LegendofLex]

Also, I think it's overly easy to say that 'relatively poor camera design' is the issue. How many games do you know with good camera design?

I mean, if you're going to make the case that there are very few games with good camera design, then the problem really is with game design, not with controller layout. You should be demanding better, more accessible games, not band-aids that cover up issues with bad, inaccessible games - in particular with less accessible controller design.

 

[kunonabi]

I never really had the trouble with automatic cameras that everyone else has and generally prefer them to player controlled ones. That said i rarely run into trouble with player controlled cameras either so id much rather prefer to leave as few inputs to shoulder buttons or L3/R3 as possible. Only time ive ever had an issue was in BotW and thats just because the lock on camera is complete garbage for fighting larger enemies.

 

[Chronospherics]

I'm glad you guys saved me some typing in taking OP to school for going completely off the rails with the Mario64 camera comments.

How is it wrong? I know many of you love that game but its camera is often cited as one of its one of its biggest limitations.

This is often, publicly discussed. I don't see any benefit in acting like it's untrue.

http://www.avclub.com/article/super-mario-64-introduced-camera-friend-and-foe-vi-240843

It's also, not the point. I wasn't 'going off the rails on Mario64's camera', it's camera limitations are fine relative to the era and hardware where it released. Something I said numerous times.

I mean, if you're going to make the case that there are very few games with good camera design, then the problem really is with game design, not with controller layout. You should be demanding better, more accessible games, not band-aids that cover up issues with bad, inaccessible games.

I don't see sense in seeing player control as a band aid. Wherever you give the control of the games camera an AI there are always going to be limitations. Even if you create a great AI system that ensures the game is free of camera related usability issues, you cannot guarantee that the camera is always pointing at what the player wants to see. Giving the player the option of retaining control where possible seems to make sense to me. Having remapped the controls when playing Gravity Rush and Souls games, the experience was vastly enhanced.

My experience has always also, been enhanced by the use of paddled controllers, where this becomes a non-issue due to the accessibility of the face buttons at the rear of the controller. I think anyone that has used something like the elite controller, will tell you that it's offers a better user experience for those willing to invest learning a layout with extra buttons. (see SmartWaffles and Gilby's comments in this thread).

 

[WhatNXt]

I was hoping the OP was going to be about usability for the average non-gamer, because if you think regular gamers struggle with camera usability issues, stick someone who very rarely plays games in the hotseat and watch them play.

It's second nature to a seasoned, multi-generational gamer to hold an analogue stick in their left thumb and understand that pushing up will propel their character or avatar in to the distance along the Z axis. That pulling it down will bring that object forwards. We think nothing of simultaneously swivelling another stick in our right hand, and adding lateral pressure to the left stick, moves which combine to form a camera-rotating strafe. That shit can feel great when the controls are nailed down, but it IS a complex thing to ask of people.

VR answers that problem to a degree, directly mapping the act of looking to looking, but the high price of entry makes it something only a minority are experiencing.

The dexterity and mental-mapping we demand of players when it comes to 3D controls are what keep a lot of people away. Far from there being a need to over complicate controls further and give MORE freedom to the player, in the form of new inputs or controller paradigms, I think we need a way to REDUCE complexity and use intelligent heuristics to automate MORE of what the camera does. Make the camera content-aware and dynamic. Give players a means to override it, yes, but in my view - all of the best 3D games are the ones where you barely think of the camera at all.

 

[LegendofLex]

How is it wrong? I know many of you love that game but its camera is often cited as one of its one of its biggest limitations.

From your OP:

On Super Mario 64, this didn't matter, because the n64 controller didn't have a second analogue stick, so the camera wasn't controllable be the player

You started off that train of thought on exactly the wrong foot, then shifted the goalposts.

I was hoping the OP was going to be about usability for the average non-gamer, because if you think regular gamers struggle with camera usability issues, stick someone who very rarely plays games in the hotseat and watch them play.

Yeah, this is exactly why I'm baffled by the decision to shift toward a control scheme even more entrenched around the needs and play habits of experienced gamers as a "solution" to bad cameras. The best camera controls can be mostly invisible to less experienced players.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

I'm not sure how you'd build a controller with enough shoulder buttons for something like this. Also, even now, I often have trouble quickly switching between L1 and L2, but that admittedly may be due to habit.

Separately, there are games that rely almost fully on automatic camera control, and work well. See Mario Galaxy.

Also, mouse and keyboard ftw.

 

[Candescence]

The Steam Controller already solves this issue with both the right trackpad (enabling a considerable amount of functionality on top of camera control, just look at the Dark Souls III default settings, and that's on top of the trackpad's general speed and precision) and the grip buttons. The Xbox One Elite controller and the third-party 'Elite' controllers for the PS4 help with their own grip buttons, but that only goes so far.

Grip buttons that use the functions traditionally used by face buttons would immediately solve so many problems if they were on a system's default controller. But universal remapping and making shoulder buttons standard for essential functions are also good.

 

[AuthenticM]

I agree with you, TC.

The player should always have his or her fingers on the buttons tied to essential actions, instead of being forced to switch at inopportune times.

It's why I always remap the button layout in the Mega Man X games so I dash with L and jump with R. That way, I have one finger for each of the essential actions: dash, jump and shoot.

 

[ShadowSoldier89]

this is one thing I actually really appreciated after moving over to primarily being a PC gamer. All controls at your fingertips at all times. Nothing lost.

However console controller mod makers have started to find solutions to this, but they are at extreme premiums.

I'm not sure who started it, but Scuf was one of the first if not the first to remap the face buttons to rear padels

 

[manueldelalas]

How is it wrong? I know many of you love that game but its camera is often cited as one of its one of its biggest limitations.

This is often, publicly discussed. I don't see any benefit in acting like it's untrue.

http://www.avclub.com/article/super-mario-64-introduced-camera-friend-and-foe-vi-240843

It's also, not the point. I wasn't 'going off the rails on Mario64's camera', it's camera limitations are fine relative to the era and hardware where it released. Something I said numerous times.

You said the camera wasn't controllable by the player, which is just wrong.

This has nothing to do with loving the game or not.

Sure, it's not fully controllable in all places, there are fixed camera sections, and it will many times try to recenter (although this is slow enough), but the whole point of that game was the degree of freedom the camera had. As I said, it had two camera modes, because it was not the standard, further Mario games abandoned having two camera modes, and Mario 64 set the standard we use today.

 

[Chronospherics]

From your OP:



You started off that train of thought on exactly the wrong foot, then shifted the goalposts.

Well sure, any of these games have directly controllable cameras, so long as you have a recentre button then the camera is 'directly controllable' but not articulately. 64s camera features x y input vectors which can be articulated, both together, to varying degrees, but you can't do that without an analog stick. So the game has to interpret digital input in a pretty crude way to provide the camera movement you see in game.

You can never, at least to my knowledge achieve something like velocity x + 15, velocity y + 10. It's like you're controlling the grid the camera can move across, but not the camera directly. it also, still has the same issues, where you can't easily achieve articulate control of the camera at the same time as jumping.

Either way, I can see how it might not have been clear what I meant, so I apologise for that, but at the same time, it wasn't the point I was making anyway.

this is one thing I actually really appreciated after moving over to primarily being a PC gamer. All controls at your fingertips at all times. Nothing lost.

However console controller mod makers have started to find solutions to this, but they are at extreme premiums.

I'm not sure who started it, but Scuf was one of the first if not the first to remap the face buttons to rear padels

While I do agree that this is a good solution, I think it's probably inaccessible for a large number of players and if there are simpler resolutions with traditional remapping then developers should pursue those.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

This specific issue is why I'm a huge advocate for making optional paddles a standard for future controllers. It takes some getting used to but it's a serious game changer for me not having to ever take my thumb off the thumbsticks to the point that I'm seriously considering buying a SCUF controller for PS4 (I already have the Elite for Xbox).