> I've noticed that people seem to have similar tastes in a lot of things
> like graphics, sound, physics... Which isn't surprising since in general
> it's pretty straightforward to judge whether one game's graphics/sound
> are more convincing or realistic than another's(of course, not always).
> IOW, almost anyone would agree Soul Calibur looks nicer than Killer
> Instinct Gold, for example.
Yes. Gee, does anything _not_ look better than that? :^)
> But I've noticed that with the issue of
> control, tastes seem to vary a lot more.
I don't like Soul Calibur's control
. For one, I've had many times when
my attempt to run away made my character duck instead. The eight way run
is poorly implemented I find although a good idea (Power Stone just
handles it _better_). Second, blocking is a pain because it's far too
difficult to tell where a particular attack is striking since they're
all too flashy and elaborate to quickly determine where it will strike.
The whole "vertical" and "horizontal" attack seems a bit ridiculous to
me since often time those buttons do anything but, but at least it's not
as bad as assigning one button to each limb. (I can picture Tekken 4
using a butt button, a head button, a chest button....)
> There are people who love
> Resident Evil's control style and others who hate it...a lot of people
> love the Turok default setting and seems like just as many people prefer
> Goldeneye's default setting....
The lil bit of Resident Evil I've played gave me the impression that it
was meant for a mouse, not a joypad.
> So just kind of curious to see if any if us will at least agree on a
> game or style that we feel is the worst.. I personally hate Omikron's
> control style more than any other game..Just because I think third
> person free camera games work best with analog control... But I may be
> in the minority there. I'd like to hear everyone else's opinions....
Croc has the worst control
ever of the games I've played. Terrible
camera work and a terrible control
implementation. I also don't care for
, period, and have yet to see a console game
benefits from its use. Analog controllers seem to accept three different
phases of response: the first is usually _really_ slow movement, the
second is for some kind of slow walk, and the third (when the stick is
pushed farthest) is a quick run. I have _never_ seen anyone use the
first two... unless, of course, the stick is broken. :^) Actually, the
to use analog perfectly was NiGHTS, but I'm inclined to think
that's more because of the controller rotation required for looping,
which makes the analog ergonomically better suited to the game
Analog may be fine for driving games, but, those, too, don't seem to
handle as well as digital. The "gap" between the three levels of analog
don't allow for a continuous sense of control and predictability I like
in a game so heavily reliant on the controller's movements. That is, I
don't like having to turn my vehicle from phase one to phase two without
having much input on how much I wish to turn. With digital, I can at
least tap the controller to the extent I want to adjust my movements.
Still, I can somewhat understand why people would like such control in a
driving game, though... but a platform game? A fighter? A puzzle game?
Here's a quickie poll: How many people play Power Stone or Soul Calibur
with the D-pad rather than the analog stick? Granted, the games weren't
designed with analog control in mind, but it's _a lot_ more intuitive to
use the digital pad than the other. Does anyone _really_ think analog
control gives them 360 degrees of movement? Is that much movement even