>>2462682>Break their expectations and test if they can learn how to interact with what they are given
Fuck with the interface and I won't have interest to learn how to bend myself to its rules, as they seem arbitrary and meanspirited. Provide rules as a solid abstraction, and you have something interesting at hand.>some will quit after the first game because they don't want to think to much
I strongly disagree with the implications of this statement, in respect to RE. Jumping through hoops has nothing to do with wanting to think. I'm very willing to play odd abstract puzzles, and physics games and whatever. However, I also have a personal interest in interfaces, and the moment I sense that something is simply bad interface design, it's over for me. I'm just not willing to deal with arbitrary mapping issues. There are too many good games to play, for me to waste time on the ones that have issues finding themselves. In the case of RE, I firmly believe the controls have very little to do with intentional gameplay. They're a limitation of a static camera and a single digital d-pad as directional input. The encounters in the game account for the issue, but that's just because the level designers knew what they were doing. They shaped the levels to work with the controls, not the other way round.>The movement system and controls are the rules
And if they happen to closely mirror reality, like in RE, that comes with expectations. If they clash, it needs to be resolved. If it is a reasonable approximation, it can be chalked up as rules, and worked with. In the case of RE though it has the unfortunate side effect that it does not look like a rule but an actual limit of the controls. You can work with it, but you're forever reminded that it's just the controls getting in the way. >The notion that games have aged based on a control aspect is partially because
And partially because developers learnt better how to control 3D motions with fundamentally 2D controllers.