• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Tomb Raider controls or: How the fuck did I play this as a kid

R

Ralemont

not me
Neither control scheme is "realistic."

No, you can't plant on a dime while maintaining your speed (can you even do this in TR2013? Many new-school action schemes have an animation for planting and stopping momentum to change directions for a 180). Yes, there is such a thing as using a foot to plant and change directions at an angle that doesn't require an orbit around a small imaginary point of gravity.
 
S

Shadow Hog

Member
Personally, I actually really liked the slow, methodical pace Tomb Raider has, and that's as somebody who eats up the quicker-paced, arcadey platforming of Mario or old Sonic games like nobody's business. It's something different, and once you take an hour or so to get acclimated to its quirks, it actually works shockingly well. (Although I do prefer the PC versions of the games, where I can quicksave in case I'm about to screw up a jump, to the console versions, where I have to rely on one-time-only checkpoints. I suppose others will feel differently on that, but whatever.)

Sometimes I wonder if increasing the turning speed somewhat and tying it to the right analog stick or the mouse - but keeping pretty much everything else as-is - would change peoples' tunes any. Obviously it can't be overdone (presumably if you turn the camera such that Lara's facing at a right angle from her original direction while at a full clip, she'd briefly have to slow down to adjust accordingly, while gently changing the angle would basically act as it already does), but really, the tank controls aren't so far removed from modern WASD+mouse or dual-analog control schemes, were somebody to put the time into making those controls work with classic Tomb Raider's mechanics instead of altering Tomb Raider's mechanics to fit those controls. (Not sure about strafing or not; if it'd be in, it'd have to be very carefully implemented so as to not turn the jumping puzzles into absolute jokes - although it could open up jumps where you have to jump onto a climbable wall that's slightly offset from where you're running, where strafing before jumping lets you adjust your trajectory to hit it while not adjusting your angle so you're jumping at it head-on.)

Also the animation for switching to "I just grabbed onto this ladder/vined wall from a standing jump" to "I am climbing this ladder/vined wall with all four limbs" could really do with a speed-up.
 
D

DidntKnowJack

Member
Those early TR's are archaic by today's standards for sure, but the controls aren't an insurmountable obstacle to playing. Even back in the day the controls in those games were considered to be shaky compared to their peers, but any complaints I may have had took a back seat to the fact that I was exploring a huge world, albeit level by level, but a huge world full of some pretty cool locations. Those first 2 games have aged for sure, but I still like them.
 
S

Synth

Member
M°°nblade;148649198 said:
1) I never said a human can make a 90° turn 'without a rotation' if that's with you mean with 'perfect'. That's would be silly ofcourse. That also wasn't the point.
2) Yes, old TR/RE 'can' let you change direction, but only by a fixed small angle which is pretty pointless
3) Tank controls dying with and because of the introduction of analog sticks is not invalid. That fact that you had to search examples of a 2.5D game like crash bandicoot and an early 3D third-person game like Mario64 to find 'unconventional' controls only demonstrates that developers were indeed still trying to find ways to control 3D games in the 90's. Conventional non-tank controls became the norm because it was more intuitive to stop using the orientation of the character as a reference for movement in 3D environments. Simple as that.


Which ones? Even RE, aka 'the mother of tank control' stopped using the tank controls last generation.
Tank controls are fine for modern 'point&click' games where they don't 'hurt'. Anything action-orientated is a disaster.


I can walk backwards in every FPS and many TPS games I buy. You don't need tank controls for that. Games like Zelda and Demon's souls use the 'auto-focus' mode to switch between running back and running backwards.


I'm not claiming any control scheme to be absolutely superior. Just because every control scheme has it's advantages and disadvantages doesn't mean you can't spell out which on works better for the vast majority of 3D games/genres.
Click to expand...

1) Yea, you didn't say "without rotation". You said "whilst running", which would mean not ceasing all forward momentum to make the turn before starting to run again in the other direction. On an oval track people can actually run the entirety of it, on a square track they can't.

2) What you actually said was wrong. I'm not going to argue (subjective) points that you may have had floating around in your head, but didn't actually type here until being proven wrong. Also be honest, do you really think it's pointless? Are you trying to tell me that RE and Tomb Raider would be similar if you actually did have to run in a perfect straight line ALL the time? Because I'm finding that difficult to believe.

3) You appear to have completely misunderstood my point here. Firstly Crash is 3D. Stop it. Secondly I picked Mario 64DS as that was an example of a game that has both an analog implementation AND a digital one. The point is to show that digital vs analog is not the cause of the differences. The abilities each character requires is a bigger factor. This brings me back to the other point that seemingly flew over your head (but Shadow Hog appears to understand at least). First/third person shooters when played with a joypad generally operate under the same limitations as what you're referring to as "tank controls". They still have prolonged turning arcs much like Tomb Raider and Resident Evil did. The only real difference is the ability to combine strafing with turning as a result of a second stick being available. Resident Evil 4/5 especially count here as they don't even allow this. It is pretty much the same tank controls as all the other Resident Evil's, with the real difference being the perspective change. Imagine fixing the camera behind Jill in REmake, or detaching it from Leon in RE4... it's basically the same in both cases. There's even a mod that does this. All a single analog stick provides is more levels of precision in between the max values. In other words, the ability to turn/run slower than the max turning/running speed.

So yea, plenty of people are perfectly fine with controls that function "worse than reality", as it still applies to many of the biggest games in existence right now.

EDIT: Since strafing is mapped to unique buttons in Tomb Raider, I'm removing that differentiation. They could have let you strafe at the same time if they wanted to.
 
Refreshment.01

Refreshment.01

Member
DidntKnowJack said:
Those early TR's are archaic by today's standards for sure, but the controls aren't an insurmountable obstacle to playing. Even back in the day the controls in those games were considered to be shaky compared to their peers, but any complaints I may have had took a back seat to the fact that I was exploring a huge world, albeit level by level, but a huge world full of some pretty cool locations. Those first 2 games have aged for sure, but I still like them.
Click to expand...
This a pretty resonable point of view. The controls do work for the game quite well once you get used to them but they don't feel very fluid and are somewhat "clunky". They havent aged so well.

But some people that like the game alot are not pleased with just that, everyone needs to acknowledge the brilliance of this timeless control mechanics and scheme, it's perfection forever frozen in time.
 
A

ajjow

Member
This play really bad.
The greatest achievement of TR on ps1 was to create a mature videogame with a likeable character.

This was non existent. The idea of early TB games was to create puzzle games with the false idea of platforming.

You see the gifs and you imagine an adventure game like uncharted, but you actually solvi g a puzzle. The corret place to jump, run and shoot.

The game is a mess. The story and the boobs of lara saved it.

The game punishes creativity, because every jump must be done under certain constraints. Thats pitiful game desing.

However, the character, story, presentation and ambience is really good. Going from venice to a ship wreckage is nice.

The level in a monastery i good too.
 
M

Mr_Zombie

Member
M°°nblade;1486491982 said:
Yes, old TR/RE 'can' let you change direction, but only by a fixed small angle which is pretty pointless
Click to expand...

"Small angle"? "Pointless"?

I posted a whole speedrun of The 4th Survivor mode from RE2 where both players shown in the video run through the whole mode, managing to cover most of the RPD in just 3 minutes, not stopping even once (or very, very rarely) while dodging every single enemy that stood in their way, even in tight, crowded corridors. How does that make this turning ability "pointless"?

Not to mention, previously you were stating that those tank controls didn't allow you to turn while moving at all. So even though you managed to move the goal post here, you're still wrong.

Refreshment.01 said:
But some people that like the game alot are not pleased with just that, everyone needs to acknowledge the brilliance of this timeless control mechanics and scheme, it's perfection forever frozen in time.
Click to expand...

It's perfection for that kind of game, where you have to be careful since the environment is filled with traps, and where every step you take and every jump you make has to be precise and calculated, since the game doesn't help you at all (doesn't adjust your jumps, doesn't make you automatically grab ledge when run too far etc.) and punishes you for every mistake.

Modern Prince of Persia and Tomb Raider games (the nearest games to the classic TR ones) give you modern controls, but at the same time their tolerance to failures are greater; they constantly help you and hold your hand.
 
S

Skilletor

Member
Mr_Zombie said:
It's perfection for that kind of game, where you have to be careful since the environment is filled with traps, and where every step you take and every jump you make has to be precise and calculated, since the game doesn't help you at all (doesn't adjust your jumps, doesn't make you automatically grab ledge when run too far etc.) and punishes you for every mistake.

Modern Prince of Persia and Tomb Raider games (the nearest games to the classic TR ones) give you modern controls, but at the same time their tolerance to failures are greater; they constantly help you and hold your hand.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Nobody defending the controls is saying put these controls in every game, but some people critiquing the controls are saying the game would be better without them. At most, people that like the controls would appreciate more games with the kind of thought that is needed when designing levels and gameplay around these controls.

It wouldn't be better. It would be entirely different. Everything would have to be changed to account for the change in control. I don't want that game, I like Tomb Raider the way it is.
 
M

Mman235

Member
ajjow said:
The game punishes creativity, because every jump must be done under certain constraints. Thats pitiful game desing.
Click to expand...

This is straight up garbage. Once you understand the limits of the controls many levels can be navigated in all kinds of non-standard ways after you apply that knowledge in creative ways.
 
Refreshment.01

Refreshment.01

Member
Mr_Zombie said:
It's perfection for that kind of game, where you have to be careful since the environment is filled with traps, and where every step you take and every jump you make has to be precise and calculated, since the game doesn't help you at all (doesn't adjust your jumps, doesn't make you automatically grab ledge when run too far etc.) and punishes you for every mistake.

Modern Prince of Persia and Tomb Raider games (the nearest games to the classic TR ones) give you modern controls, but at the same time their tolerance to failures are greater; they constantly help you and hold your hand.
Click to expand...
i understand you and agree with most of what you said there XD

The tolerance to failures and hand holding of the successive games are not much a consequence fo the revised controls systems, i think it has to do more with modern game design ideosyncracies and fears of alienating the user base.

As a question, and excuse my memory failing me, someone was saying that the grid style of navigation in 3D enviroment stopped (and maybe he/she considers that reached the pinnacle) with Tomb Raider. Do you think that's the case? There most be many other games after that did a similar way of traversal. Even recent games, like the last Metroid and 3D World i think have that style of movement, even can be played with a cross pad efficiently.
 
S

Synth

Member
Refreshment.01 said:
i understand you and agree with most of what you said there XD

The tolerance to failures and hand holding of the successive games are not much a consequence fo the revised controls systems, i think it has to do more with modern game design ideosyncracies and fears of alienating the user base.

As a question, and excuse my memory failing me, someone was saying that the grid style of navigation in 3D enviroment stopped (and maybe he/she considers that reached the pinnacle) with Tomb Raider. Do you think that's the case? There most be many other games after that did a similar way of traversal. Even recent games, like the last Metroid and 3D World i think have that style of movement, even can be played with a cross pad efficiently.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say Metroid or Mario 3D World are similar at all really. The grid applies to Lara as much as it does to her environment. I'm struggling to think of any modern comparisons outside of extremely simple implementations like ilomilo.
 
MrCunningham

MrCunningham

Member
Synth said:
I wouldn't say Metroid or Mario 3D World are similar at all really. The grid applies to Lara as much as it does to her environment. I'm struggling to think of any modern comparisons outside of extremely simple implementations like ilomilo.
Click to expand...

This is far from a recent example as it is almost as old as Tomb Raider, but Oddworld Abe's Oddysee on the PS1 and PC used grid style Prince of Persia controls. The recent remake changed the controls to a much more conventional 2D platformer control style with scrolling environments. I've seen a lot of mixed views on the revamped control scheme for this one too, some fans of the original really hate it because it ruins the pacing and accuracy of the original, making the character movement far more finicky than what it used to be. While others prefer the more familiar control style. I haven't played the game yet myself and I am waiting for the PC version, but watching videos between the two, I can see the comparisons myself. The methodical puzzle aspect of the original seems a bit missing from the Abe remake.
 
N

NinjamicWZ

Banned
MrCunningham said:
This is far from a recent example as it is almost as old as Tomb Raider, but Oddworld Abe's Oddysee on the PS1 and PC used grid style Prince of Persia controls. The recent remake changed the controls to a much more conventional 2D platformer control style with scrolling environments. I've seen a lot of mixed views on the revamped control scheme for this one too, some fans of the original really hate it because it ruins the pacing and accuracy of the original, making the character movement far more finicky than what it used to be. While others prefer the more familiar control style.I haven;t played the game yet myself and I am waiting for the PC version, but watching videos between the two, I can see the comparisons myself. The methodical puzzle aspect of the original seems a bit missing from the Abb remake.
Click to expand...

I really enjoy New N Tasty, but the lack of a strict, illusory adherence to a grid really makes the gameplay abysmal in comparison to the original game. I love almost everything else about it and am still able to play and enjoy it regardless, but it's got two left feet and is stepping on both of them.

I'm balanced and anything can grow on me. Stuff that other people might write off immediately. I know it's not just because I "know better" as a huge fan of Oddysee/Exoddus... the streamlining is enjoyable, but I really am just slipping around everywhere, unsure of my proximity and spacing to an environment and obstacle placement that still adheres to a grid. Grid-based puzzle and environment design has a unique merit that justifies it's existence, and non-grid interaction goes against the grain. I make the best of it, and some people fully embrace it, but it's something I've used as an example in this thread a couple times.
 
S

Shadow Hog

Member
Man, this thread has me going back to Tomb Raider 2. It's actually my first time through it; started it sometime last year, immediately after finishing the first game for the first time (not my first time starting it, but first time clearing it), dropped it after clearing Venice (stage 2, that is, not stages 2-4). Only real gripe is that it's way too easy to miss the secret dragon statues and not realize it until you've already passed a point of no return or two, heh. (Well, that and how the music cuts out when you go underwater - and that the music likes to start up the instant I reach water. It's good music! Let it play!)
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
M°°nblade;148622252 said:
Are you?
Or don't you fully understand what an 90° turn means?
Click to expand...
M°°nblade;148622813 said:
Is reality wrong (I'm not aware of different definition of what the word 'stopping' means)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNNljAgxic
Click to expand...
M°°nblade;148620350 said:
What? I can perfectly turn 90° left or right while walking or running, without 'stopping' in real life.
Click to expand...

M°°nblade about that life, saying fuck ya'll to the world of physics. Bravo breaking down the laws of reality so you could achieve the most fluid controls possible. You guys really are dedicated.

M°°nblade;148620350 said:
How realistic is that?
Click to expand...

Realism is not the goal of a videogame a great majority of the time. Functionality is within the constraints of your stated goals for the title.

M°°nblade;148620350 said:
RE1 and Tombraider came out in 1996 when the PS1 controller didn't have analog sticks. Times have changed.
Click to expand...

Times has not remotely changed the superb effectiveness of Tomb Raider's controls one iota, however. Times changing does not actually indicate anything at all relating to TR's controls. Popularity of a particular control method over another is also not an indication of quality one way or the other regarding TR's controls.

It's so bizarre how people don't grasp how weird these discussions actually are.

Tomb Raider is a videogame in the true sense of the word. Its controls are abstracted away from real life into a set of hard fast rules that could only be possible in a game and are unbreakable and that, whilst they have a steeper learning curve than alternatives, add up to amongst the most precise controls ever implemented into the genre.

Just like candles still have utility and are supremely effective given the right goals in modern society (looool KooopaKid) and just like Chess despite having a much more complex and arbitrary set of movement rules than Checkers remains one of the most strategically appealing board games to this day, Tomb Raider remains a brilliant expression of control precision that is unparalleled to this day.

Tomb Raider's controls are meant to be mastered and once mastered you can complete feats of astonishing control brilliance. The shit we can do in the game thanks to the beautifully defined control ruleset and implementation is completely incredible depending on how much you practice (blindfold gaming, sequence breaking, "one arm playing", etc). The controls necessarily have a higher learning curve than Mario 64 or whatever 3D movement game you're thinking of most likely, but the end result is a control scheme that is so supremely effective at high level play that most of those games you'd mention simply cannot touch it.

It's a trade off!

And here's the big point, so wait for it:

There is room enough in the industry for multiple vibrant approaches to 3D game control, much like there is room for different genres, different characters, different controllers.

Indeed, the industry could be healthy enough to even contain more than two or three or more control schemes for this genre that are all equally as desirable but for completely different reasons, all with advantages and disadvantages against one another!
 
F

Fugu

Member
Tomb raider attempts to emulate the challenges of being acrobatic in real life by making simple tasks simple and difficult tasks difficult; that's it. If you spend the... twenty minutes or so that it takes to get used to Tomb Raider's controls you will discover that they are deliberate and, furthermore, that the game world is designed around them.

If you don't like it, well, that's taste, but it's silly to say that the genre has iterated Tomb Raider out of existence. There are many things that Tomb Raider does, like add an atmospheric, methodical aspect to platforming, that Mario 64 does not.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
Fugu said:
Tomb raider attempts to emulate the challenges of being acrobatic in real life by making simple tasks simple and difficult tasks difficult; that's it. If you spend the... twenty minutes or so that it takes to get used to Tomb Raider's controls you will discover that they are deliberate and, furthermore, that the game world is designed around them.

If you don't like it, well, that's taste, but it's silly to say that the genre has iterated Tomb Raider out of existence. There are many things that Tomb Raider does, like add an atmospheric, methodical aspect to platforming, that Mario 64 does not.
Click to expand...

It's like there's only one possible path to greatness for some people, and any other way is anathema by default. It's kind of sad how narrow minded that sort of thinking is. And it's clearly pervasive amongst a fairly large group of gamers.
 
M

M°°nblade

Banned
Synth said:
1) Yea, you didn't say "without rotation". You said "whilst running", which would mean not ceasing all forward momentum to make the turn before starting to run again in the other direction. On an oval track people can actually run the entirety of it, on a square track they can't.
Click to expand...
Yes they can, they just need to slow down their speed more in order to make the sharper apex of corner, depending on the widthness of the path.
Just because you cease running 'forward' to make a 90° turn doesn't mean you cease running 'entirely'. Because you don't actually need to stop during the rotation, just slow down.

2) What you actually said was wrong. I'm not going to argue (subjective) points that you may have had floating around in your head, but didn't actually type here until being proven wrong. Also be honest, do you really think it's pointless? Are you trying to tell me that RE and Tomb Raider would be similar if you actually did have to run in a perfect straight line ALL the time? Because I'm finding that difficult to believe.
Click to expand...
I don't remember ever having used a fixed prolonged turning act in TR by simultaneously pressing FORWARD and LEFT/RIGHT. Does it make the character walk/run diagonally (45°) in a straith line or actually turn in a fixed angle oval? If people say it was there, I'm not going to deny it.

3) You appear to have completely misunderstood my point here. Firstly Crash is 3D. Stop it. Secondly I picked Mario 64DS as that was an example of a game that has both an analog implementation AND a digital one. The point is to show that digital vs analog is not the cause of the differences. The abilities each character requires is a bigger factor. This brings me back to the other point that seemingly flew over your head (but Shadow Hog appears to understand at least). First/third person shooters when played with a joypad generally operate under the same limitations as what you're referring to as "tank controls". They still have prolonged turning arcs much like Tomb Raider and Resident Evil did. The only real difference is the ability to combine strafing with turning as a result of a second stick being available. Resident Evil 4/5 especially count here as they don't even allow this. It is pretty much the same tank controls as all the other Resident Evil's, with the real difference being the perspective change. Imagine fixing the camera behind Jill in REmake, or detaching it from Leon in RE4... it's basically the same in both cases. There's even a mod that does this. All a single analog stick provides is more levels of precision in between the max values. In other words, the ability to turn/run slower than the max turning/running speed.

So yea, plenty of people are perfectly fine with controls that function "worse than reality", as it still applies to many of the biggest games in existence right now.

EDIT: Since strafing is mapped to unique buttons in Tomb Raider, I'm removing that differentiation. They could have let you strafe at the same time if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
Crash bandicoot is 3D, but it's tube-like level layout and gameplay functionality is rather 2.5D like and with a uncontrollable camera position. Because of this, it didn't really require more refined controls than 8-directional control to be fun unlike more open environment 3D games.
Also, I don't see how giving examples of tank control games played with analog sticks or vice versa is going to make my point invalid. I never said D-pad or analog stick are going to entirely disable certain control schemes, just that the introduction of the analog stick made 'modern' non-tank controls the norm for the majority of 3D games because it was way more intuitive.
You are right that the abilities required by the character are a factor as well, and so is the environment (s)he walks in (the last Onimusha installment dropped tank controls together with the prerendered environments), but the analog stick is what made navigation beyond simple 8-direction movement possible in the first place.

First/third person shooters do not have the same 'limitations' as tank controllers because even while pressing LEFT/RIGHT, you can use the same stick to have a combined FORWARD/BACKWARD movement in a degree you choose. You don't need the right analog stick because you don't need to turn unless you want to move the camera as well.
 
S

SonyToo!™

Member
eot said:
I'm very much in the kb/m camp for shooters, but I'm not sure it's an apt comparison. A stick and a mouse are different (but both analog) inputs for what's essentially the same control scheme. Mario 64 and Tomb Raider have fundamentally different control schemes.
Click to expand...

I used the M&K / pad FPS comparison because M&K is argued as the "perfect" control scheme to analog's "imperfect but fun". So in this thread Mario 64 controls would be M&K players while tank analog pad users, I'm particularly reminded of the arguments M&K users would make (and me in the past) of why they aren't prepared to even bother to learn to play FPS with a pad.

Amir0x said:
It's like there's only one possible path to greatness for some people, and any other way is anathema by default. It's kind of sad how narrow minded that sort of thinking is. And it's clearly pervasive amongst a fairly large group of gamers.
Click to expand...

Imo 9/10 it's ppl blaming the controls instead of themselves since in my experience it's players who suck at them tend to be the ones complaining. It takes time to master new controls but mistakes are blamed on "bad controls" so they don't learn and improve becoming a negative feedback loop. It also explains why threads like this it's common to see ppl like the OP who change their opinion once they master them.

Popular control schemes can't be blamed since someone moaning about Street Fighter 2 or Forza would get called a noob, however M&K and analog FPS controls are different with one camp saying the other is bad. I used to be on the M&K side and even though I could use a pad to play other genres including TPS I would totally suck at CoD like I'd never held a pad in my life. I didn't master analogue FPS until I approached it with an open mindset, since then I've noticed that I pick up new controls more rapidly to before.

I would guess that threads like this help greatly to stop ppl from falling into that negative trap.
 
C

Cave Johnson

Member
SonyToo!™;148791110 said:
Imo 9/10 it's ppl blaming the controls instead of themselves since in my experience it's players who suck at them tend to be the ones complaining. It takes time to master new controls but mistakes are blamed on "bad controls" so they don't learn and improve becoming a negative feedback loop. It also explains why threads like this it's common to see ppl like the OP who change their opinion once they master them.
Click to expand...

How this thread still continues after this is a testament how damn pointless these criticisms are. Again, does the idea of a learning curve or a skill ceiling above the norm really warrants some kind gaming flaw now?
 
Sanctuary

Sanctuary

Member
The controls weren't really so different in terms of clunkiness as the original RE games. That is to say, they weren't nearly as bad as many people made them out to be. By today's standards however, they might be considered unacceptable, but that's progress for you. Shadow of the Colossus had one of the worst control schemes of any game that I can remember, yet the majority that speak about that game only seem to gush over it even today.
 
M

Mzo

Member
Tomb Raider played like old Prince of Persia in 3D.

The first Tomb Raider is still an excellent game.
 
C

Cave Johnson

Member
Sanctuary said:
The controls weren't really so different in terms of clunkiness as the original RE games. That is to say, they weren't nearly as bad as many people made them out to be. By today's standards however, they might be considered unacceptable, but that's progress for you. Shadow of the Colossus had one of the worst control schemes of any game that I can remember, yet the majority that speak about that game only seem to gush over it even today.
Click to expand...

Because that's just your opinion - like the same kind of reasoning that sparked this thread debate.
 
K

krYlon

Member
Sanctuary said:
Shadow of the Colossus had one of the worst control schemes of any game that I can remember, yet the majority that speak about that game only seem to gush over it even today.
Click to expand...

Another game I adored, partly because of the satisfaction of mastering a unique control scheme. And you can do some really crazy impressive shit in SotC.

It's interesting, I played Bioshock after playing SotC (played on my BC PS3) and it took me aaages to get used to the controls because I was zoned into the SotC control scheme so much. They just felt off.
It's amazing how much of what we think is a "good" control scheme is conditioned into us through habit.

Last post.
 
B

BladeoftheImmortal

Member
evilromero said:
lol

I always maintained back when the game came out that it was shit. I remember having Mario 64 and being utterly absorbed in the game and then hearing at work how everyone was playing TR. So I checked it out- it was a pile of shit. How did anyone think this was fun when Mario 64 was being sold? I could never wrap my mind around that and still can't to this day.

If you ever pick up and play Mario 64 today is holds up so well that in many ways it eclipses the play controls of many third person action games today. Still the gold standard.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Camera control with the c buttons in M64 is horseshit and makes playing it quite annoying. Dual sticks were a godsend.
 
S

SonyToo!™

Member
Cave Johnson said:
How this thread still continues after this is a testament how damn pointless these criticisms are. Again, does the idea of a learning curve or a skill ceiling above the norm really warrants some kind gaming flaw now?
Click to expand...

As far as control schemes go it does seem to be the case.
 
G

grandwizard

Member
Fugu said:
Tomb raider attempts to emulate the challenges of being acrobatic in real life by making simple tasks simple and difficult tasks difficult; that's it. If you spend the... twenty minutes or so that it takes to get used to Tomb Raider's controls you will discover that they are deliberate and, furthermore, that the game world is designed around them.

If you don't like it, well, that's taste, but it's silly to say that the genre has iterated Tomb Raider out of existence. There are many things that Tomb Raider does, like add an atmospheric, methodical aspect to platforming, that Mario 64 does not.
Click to expand...

Agree with all of this, very concise explanation of why TR controls the way it does.
 
I

I Wanna Be The Guy

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
BladeoftheImmortal said:
I disagree. Camera control with the c buttons in M64 is horseshit and makes playing it quite annoying. Dual sticks were a godsend.
Click to expand...
The camera made M64 borderline unplayable for me when I played it for the first time in 2007. That and the controls felf really off for a 3D platformer of this kind.

But then some time later I gave the game another chance and fought through it until I had a handle on the way the game playes. It took some time, but it eventually grew on me to an extent. With that said the camera is still all kinds of shit no matter how much you get used to it.
 
F

Fugu

Member
SonyToo!™;148803245 said:
As far as control schemes go it does seem to be the case.
Click to expand...
Well, see, that's the problem with your analogy. The control stick is inferior to K&M because it tries to do the same thing as the K&M but does so in a less precise manner. It has nothing to do with learning curve; it's just the same thing but worse.

Tomb Raider, on the other hand, is not supposed to control like Mario 64. It's supposed to be slow.
 
S

Synth

Member
Fugu said:
Well, see, that's the problem with your analogy. The control stick is inferior to K&M because it tries to do the same thing as the K&M but does so in a less precise manner. It has nothing to do with learning curve; it's just the same thing but worse.
Click to expand...

How about walking slowly forwards, backwards and to the left/right?
How about continuous turning in one direction?
How about changing axis in one direction and not another (looking horizontal, with no vertical movement)?
 
F

Fugu

Member
Synth said:
How about walking slowly forwards, backwards and to the left/right?
How about continuous turning in one direction?
How about changing axis in one direction and not another (looking horizontal, with no vertical movement)?
Click to expand...
In order:
Shift.
Appropriate sensitivity makes this very easy, and for cases where the extreme is likely to be necessary acceleration can be used.
Most people can approximate a horizontal line pretty well with correct sensitivity settings (difficult at higher sensitivities).

As far as I'm concerned, this is a non-argument. One only needs to watch someone play Quake to understand why the controller is fundamentally inferior for the FPS by a considerable margin. Furthermore, this isn't the topic of this thread, as, incidentally, Tomb Raider controls about as well with both control schemes.
 
S

Shadow Hog

Member
I will say the camera could stand to be better. I don't mind the controls much at all (once you grasp the various types of jumps Lara can perform and how to consistently do them - which is pretty easy, all things considered - you're honestly golden), but sometimes it's annoying the disconnect between where Lara's facing and where the camera's facing. During the slow, platforming-centric moments this is more than forgivable, but when I'm trying to dodge two baton-wielding thugs that are hounding me in a corner, with Lara directly facing the camera as it stares straight at that corner, it can be highly disorienting.
 
S

Synth

Member
Fugu said:
In order:
Shift.
Appropriate sensitivity makes this very easy, and for cases where the extreme is likely to be necessary acceleration can be used.
Most people can approximate a horizontal line pretty well with correct sensitivity settings (difficult at higher sensitivities).

As far as I'm concerned, this is a non-argument. One only needs to watch someone play Quake to understand why the controller is fundamentally inferior for the FPS by a considerable margin. Furthermore, this isn't the topic of this thread, as, incidentally, Tomb Raider controls about as well with both control schemes.
Click to expand...

You said more precise. I'm not making claims on which is better overall for an FPS... I don't need to watch videos of Quake to convince me. I played Quake 3 religously (to the exclusion of pretty much all other games) for years, both starting out on joypad on Dreamcast before moving on the PC to play it more seriously. I'm well aware of m+kbs merits. However:

Shift or not, you're talking 0>127>255 rather than potentially having any value within that range. That also doesn't even consider the fact you have 8 directions instead of 360.
Picking up a mouse and reseting it back is hardly a big issue, but it's significantly less precise than being able to hold that direction forever.
Same with isolating an axis, you can do this to some extent with a mouse, but it's generally far less precise unless you alter the sensitivity to the point where it'll actually interfere with your ability to use the other axis when you actually want it.

What you've listed are scenarios where the m+kb combo is "good enough". It is however inferior to a joypad in these cases. The reason this control scheme is favoured so heavily for FPS is because aiming quickly with the right-stick is usually far more critical than any other action (such as character movement). Apply this to other situations like playing as Sonic, or a twin stick shooter like Geometry Wars, and you can see that the precision afforded to this setup isn't absolute.

You may have noticed I'm on the side of Tomb Raider's control system being well suited to its requirements, so don't take this as me simply saying Analog > Digital. Even when it comes to movement in an FPS that's not necessarily true (Mirror's Edge and Unreal Tournament come to mind). I'm just saying that talking in absolutes shouldn't really ever be done if both things considered require tradeoffs. You could theoretically make an FPS where character placement is of much greater importance than aiming (you may not even have to fully turn around). In this case it's quite possible to make an FPS where a joypad is a superior setup.
 
F

Fugu

Member
Synth said:
You said more precise. I'm not making claims on which is better overall for an FPS... I don't need to watch videos of Quake to convince me. I played Quake 3 religously (to the exclusion of pretty much all other games) for years, both starting out on joypad on Dreamcast before moving on the PC to play it more seriously. I'm well aware of m+kbs merits. However:

Shift or not, you're talking 0>127>255 rather than potentially having any value within that range. That also doesn't even consider the fact you have 8 directions instead of 360.
Picking up a mouse and reseting it back is hardly a big issue, but it's significantly less precise than being able to hold that direction forever.
Same with isolating an axis, you can do this to some extent with a mouse, but it's generally far less precise unless you alter the sensitivity to the point where it'll actually interfere with your ability to use the other axis when you actually want it.

What you've listed are scenarios where the m+kb combo is "good enough". It is however inferior to a joypad in these cases. The reason this control scheme is favoured so heavily for FPS is because aiming quickly with the right-stick is usually far more critical than any other action (such as character movement). Apply this to other situations like playing as Sonic, or a twin stick shooter like Geometry Wars, and you can see that the precision afforded to this setup isn't absolute.

You may have noticed I'm on the side of Tomb Raider's control system being well suited to its requirements, so don't take this as me simply saying Analog > Digital. Even when it comes to movement in an FPS that's not necessarily true (Mirror's Edge and Unreal Tournament come to mind). I'm just saying that talking in absolutes shouldn't really ever be done if both things considered require tradeoffs. You could theoretically make an FPS where character placement is of much greater importance than aiming (you may not even have to fully turn around). In this case it's quite possible to make an FPS where a joypad is a superior setup.
Click to expand...
...But we're talking about first-person shooters, where K+M is unilaterally superior in virtually every situation that's likely to actually happen, including movement (K+M movement is not digital). Variable speed is a non-factor when games give you other ways to artificially control your speed, as is the ability to draw a perfectly straight line or to spin more than 360 degrees (if you have to pick up the mouse to do this, your sensitivity is too low).

If you are arguing that the keyboard and mouse combo is hypothetically imprecise because there is a blind spot in creating perfectly straight lines forever, then sure, great. But that's totally irrelevant to first-person shooters and I didn't claim that the keyboard and mouse was optimal for anything else. In fact, I said his analogy was bad because it was specifically referring to FPSes, where there is no situation where the controller is better unless you happen to like spinning in circles forever without looking up and down at all.
 
S

Synth

Member
Fugu said:
...But we're talking about first-person shooters, where K+M is unilaterally superior in virtually every situation that's likely to actually happen, including movement (K+M movement is not digital). Variable speed is a non-factor when games give you other ways to artificially control your speed, as is the ability to draw a perfectly straight line or to spin more than 360 degrees (if you have to pick up the mouse to do this, your sensitivity is too low).

If you are arguing that the keyboard and mouse combo is hypothetically imprecise because there is a blind spot in creating perfectly straight lines forever, then sure, great. But that's totally irrelevant to first-person shooters and I didn't claim that the keyboard and mouse was optimal for anything else. In fact, I said his analogy was bad because it was specifically referring to FPSes, where there is no situation where the controller is better unless you happen to like spinning in circles forever without looking up and down at all.
Click to expand...

You said "precise". Precise.

I gave you situations where this combination is less precise than a joypad doing the same thing.

To be fair had you compared mouse to a right-stick I probably wouldn't have bothered replying (the second two points just came to mind as I was typing the first). But the keyboard and mouse together? Nah. Half of that equation is inherently less precise than what you chose to compare it with. Even in an FPS.

EDIT: But yea, this discussion doesn't really have a place in this thread.
 
eot

eot

Banned
Fugu said:
In order:
Shift.
Appropriate sensitivity makes this very easy, and for cases where the extreme is likely to be necessary acceleration can be used.
Most people can approximate a horizontal line pretty well with correct sensitivity settings (difficult at higher sensitivities).

As far as I'm concerned, this is a non-argument. One only needs to watch someone play Quake to understand why the controller is fundamentally inferior for the FPS by a considerable margin. Furthermore, this isn't the topic of this thread, as, incidentally, Tomb Raider controls about as well with both control schemes.
Click to expand...

This one is a good example :)
 
S

SeventhSon

Member
eot said:
This one is a good example :)
Click to expand...

I am by no means a shooter expert or super fan, but watching a video like this drives home how the genre has devolved over the years with consoles taking over as lead platform.

Heck, TF2 is no QIIIA, but even it can't really be played properly without M/Kb, despite the Orange Box version on consoles.

Edit: by the way, doesn't Quake III Arena normally have an aiming reticle?
 
S

Synth

Member
SeventhSon said:
I am by no means a shooter expert or super fan, but watching a video like this drives home how the genre has devolved over the years with consoles taking over as lead platform.

Heck, TF2 is no QIIIA, but even it can't really be played properly without M/Kb, despite the Orange Box version on consoles.

Edit: by the way, doesn't Quake III Arena normally have an aiming reticle?
Click to expand...

It'd have devolved either way, for much the same reasons as why this thread exists. Games like Quake 3 weren't afraid to make you feel like shit if you weren't adept at their system. As gaming grew, that was always going to be an issue.

And yes, Quake 3 has a reticle as standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tomb Raider I-III Remastered | Review Thread
Analysis Review
17
3K
winjer replied
Tomb Raider I-III Remastered – features detailed, new key art Revealed
News 2 3
112
9K
MonkeyClaw36 replied
Tomb Raider Remastered Trilogy is the Best Way to Remaster Old Titles
9
758
Con-Z-epT replied
Coming to Xbox Game Pass: Little Kitty Big City, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, and More
News
42
2K
Kerotan replied
I don't think people realize how much GameStop and BestBuy actually helped the original Xbox.
2
51
3K
Kdad replied
Top Bottom