>"the controls are bad on purpose"

it's dumb if the reason for being bad is slow pace and the lack of a frame buffer

>>383463716
DUDE TANK CONTROLS LMAO

IT'S NOT HORROR IF IT'S NOT TANK!!!

File: 3842403.jpg (7KB, 481x276px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 481x276px

>>383463716
>the games unfinished because the creator wanted that to be one of the themes

>>383464504
they are actually superior and camera-based controls pretty much ruin the HD RE remaster in every possible sense

but keep being a child don't let me stop you

>The controls are bad
This is a total meme that means fucking nothing except on rare cases like Superman 64

>>383464504
Explain to me how you would make a character walk backwards slower without tank controls. You just wouldn't, in which case a lot of the game tension is lost.

>>383464648
>>383464708
tank controls are fine for combat and walking around but trying to do puzzles and push blocks with tank controls is actually nightmarish, that's the real horror

I thought monkey ball's camera system was nifty.

>>383464648
>>383464708
So what you're saying is that the controls are bad on purpose.

>Killer7 is the anti-game
>You press A to move . It's a FPS, but you can't see the enemies . The characters you play as are already dead.

>>383466046
>The controls perfectly match the intended experience, are responsive, are properly mapped, and work
>But they are bad!
Your own perception of what the game should play like for your own taste doesn't make controls "bad"

>>383466126
>>The controls perfectly match the intended experience
>are properly mapped
Yes.
>are responsive
>and work
Debatable.
>>But they are bad!
Yes.

>>383466265
In what way is that debatable? If you press "UP" in Resident Evil 1 you're going to move forward if you aim and shoot you're going to shoot. That's responsive and working.

The only bad controls are those which are inconsistent. If control over your character works consistently, then anyone can master the controls with time.

I'm mad, controls are the most important thing to me, you want to be able to have the optimal movement, limiting controls is not acceptable game design, limits are only okay to prevent movement that doesn't make sense, like instead of jumping you just fly up

RE7 doesn't allow you to run sideways and backwards, you always have to face the direction you're moving into to go at full speed "just like real life" just like fucking shit is what it is, RE6 had good movement but they applied the same limit with revelations 1/2

when I was younger I believed that the controls of the old RE games where because of limitations, not something done on purpose, can't believe this shit

>>383464504
>tank controls
>holding up runs forward
>abrupt camera angle change
>character continues running in the same direction

>directional controls
>holding direction runs in that direction
>abrupt camera angle change
>character suddenly starts running in a completely new direction
I'm tired of people bashing tank controls in horror games when they don't give a single thought to why they're used. The Boogieman chase in the basement of Achmilla hospital in SH2 would have been a fucking mess instead of the most intense part of the game if it wasn't for tank controls.

>>383464504
Tank controls are the worst. They're only preferable in the first 3 Resident Evils because of the camera cuts.

>>383464582
In what games does that ever happen?

>>383467935
MGSV

>>383467173
Pretty much this.
Controls are never automatically bad based exclusively on what kind of controls they are.
They're bad if they don't fit the camera movements and/or confuse the player with camera changes.
They're bad if they are unresponsive or the game uses useless bits of animation before starting the action.
They're bad if they confuse the player with unintuitive when they change arbitrarily for no apparent reason(I can't remember which game it is, but I remember playing a game where square was the attack button button and circle the fast 180 turn button, but when holding a gun and you fired it with square, circle became the "melee while holding a weapon" button because apparently a fast 180 turn was deemed unnecessary when holding a gun).
If the controls fit the game and how the game plays, they're not bad.

>>383464708
>Explain to me how you would make a character walk backwards slower without tank controls. You just wouldn't, in which case a lot of the game tension is lost.
While I'm all for tank controls in old horror games, your example is just plain stupid, as you could easily and intuitively achieve that with a walk button.
When held, the character will slowly walk backwards without the need for tank controls.
>inb4 that means you also have auto run
Make the walk button toggle run and walk
>inb4 then you can't fast turn while walking
If you need fast turning, then you need to run, and that will automatically turn the slowly walk backwards into a fast turn.

File: 2312121412.jpg (19KB, 274x228px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 274x228px

>>383467969
Oh right

>>383467173
>>abrupt camera angle change
Doesn't happen in non-fucktard games. AKA those without fixed angles.

>>383468168
RE1 and SH2 are two of the greatest games ever made

>>383468168
>I only played 1st person games or 3rd person games with free camera
you need to be at least 18 to post here

Why do people praise the Ape Escape series so much? I love 3D platformers but holy shit 2 is an absolute chore to play with the bizarre and unresponsive controls. It feels like the fucking Resident Evil of 3D platformers.

>>383468106
What are you even saying?
It's impossible to need to walk backwards without tank controls. Players would simply spin instantly on the spot, run backwards (facing forward as they tun), then spin back instantly to face whatever they need to face.
With tank controls you can do that but there's a cost associated with turning around, or you can walk backwards without turning, which is something you do as a last resource, not something you'd want to do if the game doesn't have tank controls and lets you avoid it.

>>383466858
it's not about you the player getting good at the game, it's about the game itself being designed optimally

if I may make this comparison, to cut down a tree, you can do so with a axe or with a chainsaw, which one would you rather chose?

don't dare ask me to become better hacking with the axe, give me the motherfucking chainsaw, I will not get used to something I deem inferior

>>383468497
>there's a cost associated with turning around
RE has a quickturn

>>383468537
>dark souls would be better with sm64's controls because they're more immediately responsive and they let you move more freely

>>383468497
>It's impossible to need to walk backwards without tank controls
What is having to keep on shootin at an enemy while backing away
>With tank controls you can do that but there's a cost associated with turning around
In RE you can quick turn

>>383468565
Not all of them do.
I tihnk they introduced it in RE3 which was a lot more combat heavy?

>>383468776
REmake has one

>>383468685
can't really comment since I hate dark souls and so barely played the first one, but YES ABSOLUTELY (though I haven't even played sm64, you description of more immediate response and more free movement is why I say yes, all games should be designed that way)

I feel as thought there's a distinction between a game that merely has bad controls and a game with more limiting and restrictive controls to keep the player underpowered for balance purposes

>>383468761
>What is having to keep on shootin at an enemy while backing away
Not a feature in the games I'm talking about.
If you mean walking a bit back, shooting, walking a bit back, I insist in that case without tank controls you can just run normally and turn around again.

>>383469012
>Not a feature in the games I'm talking about.
Except you're not talking about any specific games?
You just asked to be explained how to make a character slowly walk backwards without tank controls, and assumed it was not doable.
And even if you were, of course it's not a feature that is in, you asked how would you implement a specific movement(slow backward walking) if the controls were different than how they are, that automatically implies it's feature that's not in the games you're talking about, or else you wouldn't be asking in the first place.

>If you mean walking a bit back, shooting, walking a bit back
No, i mean having to keep on shooting while keeping on walking backwards
>I insist in that case without tank controls you can just run normally and turn around again.
Again, you might have to keep lock on the target, you might have to keep on shooting, there are several reasons why you might not be able to just run normally and turn again.

Really, you sound like you never played a lot of games with various different controls.
At times things can't be done, at times they're done in a specific way because it's the better way, other times they're doable in either way and the chosen one was just that, a choice not dictated by other options being worse or not doable like you assume.

ITT: people who would argue you could not freely control the camera in SM64

>>383469468
I've been talking mostly about RE which is where this argument comes up the most.
I'm not saying it's not doable from a technical perspective.
You can literally do whatever you want when you make your game. The character movements and controls can be literally anything.
I'm saying it's not doable in a way that makes sense from a design perspective.

>Really, you sound like you never played a lot of games with various different controls.
You're not getting it. I'm saying that a lot of the games that "solved" these "issues" were less tense and more similar to action games.

>>383463716
>tfw making a game focused around bad controls

>>383470129
show me anon

>>383463716
>muh movement isn't sanic fast
>why are there so many animations?
>stamina? Just let me speedrun the game!
>I wish I could speed this up
Literallly you, the fucker that developers seem to be catering to more and more.

>>383470129
Go to bed Bennett Foddy.