• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

So...why did the Game Boy Advance only have 2 face buttons?

Well, the shoulder buttons addressed the need for more buttons in a way that made sense for the console. You're gonna have your fingers there anyway, so why not?

I think the kind of games being made for that console (NOT ports) didn't cry out for more. When the DS came out and could do polygonal graphics, adding two more face buttons makes more sense, especially on a system without any real camera control.
 
YES! UNGH YES EXACTLY UNGGHH FF
The great games on this thing were designed by the fantastic ass developers who understood you gotta roll wit dat shit u no!!!
splplfpfd

Only game I think needed it was DooM. And that was a shitty port anyway.

Never have I thought while playing GBA "I wish this system had more buttons". Never.

I have a feeling that's because the devs designed their games to accommodate a two-button scheme, just like how games on the 3DS are designed to accommodate a one-analog stick control scheme. My point is, why didn't Nintendo think it was worth it to add two extra buttons?

Undoubtedly, there were games that were hindered due to the fact that one button was forced to do two things (hello spin jump in SMW). That's not to say that all games were this way; rather, games would have benefited from the addition of two other buttons.
 
Banjo Racer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zVy-4CEFQU

Those french guys, 3D platformer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAnHmG-u2VQ

PayBack 9(3D GTA CLONE)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryNR9nVB2z8

V-Rally 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1VIowq3z0g

The GBA was much more powerful than the SNES.

Max Payne (Complete with most of the voice dialogue from the PC game, and polygon characters over 2D isometric environments.) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xV1F_dlWeI

Karnaaj Rally (pretty decent Death Rally lone with flat shaded polygon background objects):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5aiRHPCvNQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=32s

Quake demo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVdOFjJ99ic

Super Monkey Ball Jr:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=K-AZQKTlUMs#t=32s


A SuperFX2 powered SNES cartridge didn't even come close to what the GBA could do when it comes to floating point calculations. I would say the GBA hardware could be comparable to something like the Sega 32x or Panasonic 3D0 in most respects. Though as many have pointed out, it does lack the dedicated sound hardware that the SNES has, so the SNES could turn out better chip tunes as a whole.
 
I'm pretty sure the answer is "Shigeru Miyamoto".

Gunpei Yokoi invented the NES controller, and it was great. He invented the SNES controller, and it was great. But Miyamoto had a major hand in the N64 controller, because it was basically being arranged around Mario 64.

The Virtual Boy, as you may recall, had twin D-pads, triggers, and four face buttons (a modest two for each thumb). I'm sure Yokoi would have given it twin analogs instead of D-pads if he had the budget (although he would've given the display more colors first), and left to himself, would've probably released a handheld with twin analog as soon as such a thing became feasible.

But then Miyamoto became the god of Nintendo, and Gunpei Yokoi was fired. And Miyamoto started talking about how controls had gotten too complicated (no doubt influenced by the N64 controller which was made to suit his own game), that controllers were scaring away the old people like himself, and that they needed to be simplified drastically. His concept for the GameCube controller was a freaking one button controller, with lesser so-called "satellite buttons" attached because people mocked his idea of a "win button". With the Wii Remote, he used waggle as an excuse to toss pretty much everything except for a D-pad and two buttons. At first, he didn't even want the analog nunchuck, that was just there to satisfy third parties and Retro.

The GameBoy Advance was obviously based on the SNES controller. Somebody decided that the SNES controller had too many buttons, and all signs point to that somebody being Miyamoto.

I don't believe the SNES controller had too many buttons. I think the GBA should have had four face buttons. And they should have been the four colors of the Super Famicom controller's face buttons.

I think you pulled most of this post out of your ass. They would never fire Yokoi. He did quit, probably out of shame because of the virtual boy failure. But before he left he still did make the Gameboy Pocket.
 
Let me give an example of chopped up.

Sticker Star vs Thousand Year Door. Sticker Star is chopped up into levels, RPG elements removed and story non existent because Miyamoto wanted to make it more handheld friendly. Has nothing to do with cinematics. Luigi's Mansion 2 is also chopped up into a mission structure instead of an open world experience. I don't believe it's a hardware limitation either.

Well I haven't played those games so it's hard to comment on them. Still they might just represent different studios developing the sequel or just overall a failed design. Fire Emblem isn't "chopped up" and neither was 3D Land.


Opinions will vary but this one is way out in left field. I guess it is true that DS Lite didn't scratch it's own top screen though.

Lite had better form, vastly superior battery life and GBA support which is why I prefer it to 3DS as a device.
 
You can still have a simple game with more buttons. What you can't have is a complex game with less.

Divekick is an incredibly complex game strategically and only has 2 buttons. Tetris is also incredibly complex and doesn't need any buttons.

Guilty Gear Advance
King of Fighters
Street Fighter Alpha 3
Every other fighter on the system

Yet every fighter on Neo Geo Pocket Color seemed to be just fine with its control layout.
 
Well I haven't played those games so it's hard to comment on them. Still they might just represent different studios developing the sequel or just overall a failed design. Fire Emblem isn't "chopped up" and neither was 3D Land.


I don't think I said that every game is chopped up. I am simply saying that chopping up games so they are more handheld friendly is not only unnecessary, it's detrimental.
 
No, the Vita still remains as an undesireable platform for me despite its wealth of "choices" built into it. They have not helped it to gather games I would like to play on it.

Well there is a saying that "less is more". By providing lesser things, it helps expose the essence or identity of a subject. The vita is overloaded with unnecessary stuffs that i believe they are regreting now, such as the 3G, back touch pad and the proprietary memory card. These really drives up the cost of the vita and brings more harms and benefits.
 
Yeah, it depends on how this chopping up is done.

What I loved about Peace Walker is how it's split up in bite-sized chunks. Perfect for playing on the move and it feels right, even though I don't play on the move. It's perfect for playing in short bursts.
 
Zoukka know's what's up.


I'd personally love to get another handheld from Nintendo that has all the limitations of the GBA to see what crazy games could get made now.
 
Nintendo made the two button scheme for simplicity, developers worked with it out of necessity, some of the best games ever were born.
 
Only Street Fighter suffered from it, but Alpha was still amazing on the GBA at the time.

Was the gba really the best system for porting fighters though? If there were fighters built ground up for its limited controls we could have had some amazing, amazing stuff I think. Look at what Tatsunoko vs Capcom did with three buttons!

Alpha 3 was awesome though!
 
I see where zoukka is coming from, but I would have to see multiple examples of good games that benefited from only have two face buttons.

The Mega Man Zero series springs to mind as something that could have used more buttons. Being able to switch weapons on the fly would have been nice. Four face buttons would have been better for RPGs.

That series had perfect controls. Trying to switch weapons on the fly would just get you hit.
 
I remember hearing they did it intentionally so it wouldn't just turn into an SNES port machine.

So that worked out well.

They certainly didn't encourage that trend... remember all those original Super Mario Bros. platformers they made for it?


The GBA was my most "WTF R U DOIN" major console/portable from Nintendo, possibly even including the Virtual Boy, just because it was so clearly hamstrung in spots. No dedicated sound chip when it obviously needed it, left off X and Y which would've provided control parity with SNES and more developer options, the screen was absolutely miserable and made some games impossible to play in anything but absolutely perfect lighting conditions (I bought two worm lights and still had to give up), the launch colors IMO were fairly unattractive, and something about the shoulder button placement did not feel good after a bit of play. Those last two are more personal issues with it, but they didn't contribute to my satisfaction with the platform, obviously.

The SP was a marvel in making the screen actually viewable, the form factor better, and shipped in some nice-looking colors, but there was only so much it could fix.
 
Nintendo is a hardcore, borderline obsessed penny pincher. They probably figure they'll sell minimum 60 million handheld units (can go significantly higher) and every penny added to the cost of BOM is money down the drain. Penny saved is a penny earned. Adding those two buttons could add whole dollars into the design and manufacture of the unit, multiply that by 60 million and you're talking about serious money. Now, buttons are pretty major, but there are probably countless other little short cuts saving cents here and there that add up tremendously.
 
I actually prefer SMW's GBA controls...

Same for Yoshi's Island. The shoulder buttons were woefully underutilized on the SNES, but most modern platformers use two face buttons for direct actions and the shoulder buttons for secondary actions.

And I'm pretty sure the GBA was way more powerful than the SNES, though less so than the SFX chip and without dedicated sound hardware.
 
I always found it strange that Nintendo made a handheld that was more powerful than SNES (a SNES port machine, no less) and only included A and B buttons instead of the ABXY configuration we're used to. It made for some pretty awkward controls in some games like the Super Mario World and A Link to the Past ports, and arguably simplified/worsened a bunch of games simply because they didn't have access to 2 more buttons.

Was there ever a reason why they did this?
The exact reason is hard to tell but for what we have seen from Nintendo maybe it was a desicion motivated by costs savings more than anything else.

It's pretty mindbending that a machine that would become an inmense port haven of SNES games or games than in general exhibit a similar complexity ended up with 2 less buttons. But the company's history is full of such questionable moves. For example: The GC controller at one stage didn't feature a Dpad. Due to suggestions Nintendo was forced to include one but get this, the Dpad used was the same GBA one when it wasn't optimal for a control of that size.

It doesn't help the company that it's most faithful userbase tends to sport a very conformist attitude towards them, so questionable desicions like this one gets a free pass.
 
Divekick is an incredibly complex game strategically and only has 2 buttons. Tetris is also incredibly complex and doesn't need any buttons.
Not every game can be like tetris just by genre alone nor should they be anyway.

Anyways, it's ridiculous to bring up those games because you know? We have games being made now that go nowhere near using one or two buttons.
 
Probably for the same reason they gave it a shitty screen (until GBA SP v2/Micro) and shitty sound hardware. It's a handheld full of compromises and half-measures, because Nintendo likes to make money on hardware.
 
Nintendo (and other handheld makers) hate moving parts. Another example: Nintendo encourages the use of the touch screen rather than having a 2nd analogue pad/stick.

Hopefully the expensive Wii U pads are wear-resistant.
 
Nintendo is a hardcore, borderline obsessed penny pincher. They probably figure they'll sell minimum 60 million handheld units (can go significantly higher) and every penny added to the cost of BOM is money down the drain. Penny saved is a penny earned. Adding those two buttons could add whole dollars into the design and manufacture of the unit, multiply that by 60 million and you're talking about serious money. Now, buttons are pretty major, but there are probably countless other little short cuts saving cents here and there that add up tremendously.

I don't think two buttons are going to add dollars to the cost of each unit. Those buttons are maybe a nickel each (plus a few cents for the springs) and putting them in wouldn't cost anymore than putting the first two buttons in. I've worked in a few factories, the machine that installs two buttons could easily be altered to install 4 with no time lost per unit, probably.

In may cost more in the design phase but that isn't multiplied by each unit made.
Nintendo (and other handheld makers) hate moving parts. Another example: Nintendo encourages the use of the touch screen rather than having a 2nd analogue pad/stick.

Hopefully the expensive Wii U pads are wear-resistant.

Do you consider buttons to be moving parts?
 
because it didnt need more

cant think of any games that truly suffered from it

sf-revive.jpg
 
Not every game can be like tetris just by genre alone nor should they be anyway.

Anyways, it's ridiculous to bring up those games because you know? We have games being made now that go nowhere near using one or two buttons.
If i were you i wouldn't be trailing that line of disscussion since it's going in a tangent to try to rest merit to what you are saying. After all this thread is not a bout game complexity and it's relation to input method. You can have a very complex game that functions with 1 button as well as a compex game that requires 10.

Now playing Link's Awakening with just the A and B buttons was far from optimal or pleasent.
I don't think two buttons are going to add dollars to the cost of each unit. Those buttons are maybe a nickel each (plus a few cents for the springs) and putting them in wouldn't cost anymore than putting the first two buttons in. I've worked in a few factories, the machine that installs two buttons could easily be altered to install 4 with no time lost per unit, probably.
See the old cents multiplied by millions cliche answer by now. And also pay attention to Nintendo re using the GBA Dpad in the GC controller to save cents at the expense of a worst user experience.
 
If i were you i wouldn't be trailing that line of disscussion since it's going in a tangent to try to rest merit to what you are saying. After all this thread is not a bout game complexity and it's relation to input method. You can have a very complex game that functions with 1 button as well as a compex game that requires 10.
But the one button will always be limited versus the 10.

It's literally one action per second versus two or more.
 
Ugh, that reminded me of that horrible, horrible Sonic 1 port. SEGA how could you?

indeed.

Fun fact: in pocketheaven forums one guy coded Sonic 1 for GBA himself and it was massively superior than Sega's effort
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pkG1ZTu83c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpiD4NnOFbc


Also, on the subject of GBA, some of the most technically impressive games for it IMHO besides V Rally 3 and Asterix XXL were:
3D: Smashing Drive, Motoracer Advance, Ballistic:Eck vs Sever, Road Rash Jailbreak, Stuntman

2D: Super Ghouls and Ghosts (much better than SNES version), Another World (a great homebrew port btw), Astro Boy, Metroid Zero Mission, Sabre Wulf, Legend of Spyro The Eternal Night and SF Alpha 3

Isometric: Banjo Kazooie, Max Payne Advance
 
But the one button will always be limited versus the 10.

It's literally one action per second versus two or more.
That's not what being disscussed, drop it. Forum moves too fast and i believe the off topic dissucssion should be kept to a minimun. It's the pragmatic and polite thing to do :)

Btw Jordan, if you read my first post in the thread, i do agree that the GBA should have adapted the exact SNES configuration. And no convincing reasons for the contrary has been given so far.
 
In the future, every game will just be automatically played by the Super Guide.

Apparently because everything is a moving part and Nintendo doesn't like moving parts.

I honestly don't think of a button as a moving part, I think of a DVD drive or a hard drive as a moving part.
 
I don't understand the big deal. If the system has a type of input layout, then devs will make their games around it. Problem solved.
 
Top Bottom