About people saying there is no objectivity when talking about controls, well you are very wrong...
Surely people have different opinions and may prefer a worse control system but there are objective ways of analyzing how good is a control system.
So I guess the first is response, how fast and how precise a system respond to your commands.
The second is the difficulty of dealing with controls, the easier the control makes to achieve a goal, the better it is.
In fact, screw it (not in the mood to explain it all), think about a car. There are people that hate modern cars, they think them too soft to control, some people dislike better controls that's it. If the car responds better and easier to what you do it is better, even if you don't like it.
Unless you are a masochist if a control have better response and achieve your gool easier and with more precision, it is better.
Now, let's anayze it without the bullshit that has been said here about controls being "subjective".
Ok, you could tell me that you would rather walk very close to an item and having to press a button to pick it, ok, your choice, I would rather just click it from miles away and wait for my character to pick it up while I watch.
It is the same with a car, maybe you love driving and don't mind driving 8 hours nonstop but it is better, objectively, to have a car that allows you, when you want to, to just sleep as he drives you with the same speed, and less risks of accidents and making mistakes than if you were driving yourself.
Masochism does not mean something is subjective. If you would rather have a control system that makes things more difficult and inacurrate it doesn't make controls subective. If 10%, 50%, 99% or even 100% of people adapt to a control system it does not make it good, or bad, the characteristics I cited above do, and others too. Everything must be rated according to its original purpose. A bad control is only good when it is supposed to be bad, like as in to make it harder for the player to perform some action.
Now you have learned to quit on this subjective crap. You like a music, ok. But is this music good? Depends on the original purpose. Did the singer make it for money? Yeah? Well if he got the money, then the music is perfect! Did he make it to tell a story? Well he sold 10 million copies but in an online survey most people said they liked the rythm and didn't even know the lyrics so it is a failure.
Then unless Bioware wanted every single action to demand more time, attention, precision and commands than the previous version the controls are objectively worse. Unless the game is supposed to be more demanding to play it is worse. There is no subjectivity here, if you need to click twice to perform and action the used to need just one click it is worse, even if you like it better. If you need to hold a button while previously you just had to click once, it is worse. If you have to walk youself and find yourself the routes and keep on pinging to find items, it is worse. But I don't exclude the possibility of this working as intended and thus making me all wrong, Bioware got so stupid that I can picture them making controls worse for people having more "immersion" in the game, I do actually believe they can be THAT stupid. In fact despite my point in this post I do actually believe this is the case. When I read Bioware's retarded minds (in other words, all of them) I see them making in more actiongamelike thinking that players would feel themselves more in the game since the character movements would respond more dierctly to the player, then, at least in their minds, it would become more personal. I see in their (stupid) minds something like: "WOW THIS WORLD IS SO BEAUTIFUL AND BIG AND ALIVE THAT PLAYERS NEED TO FEEL THEY ARE IN. SIMPLES CLICKS ARE TOO DISTANT, A PLAYER NEED TO FEEL THEY ARE JUMPING AND REALLY CONTROLLING THE CHARATCER YEAH THAT'S IT ACTION RPG TIME, OH THEY WILL LOVE IT" and sadly they were right, most people loved it.
Retour en haut
