/vr/ - Retro Games

bro shut up

>>10410823
>more realistic
>doesn't fuck you over when you have automatic camera changes like in Alone in the Dark and clones
>filters double digit IQ

>>10410823
Its been tested that people who have problems controlling a character from an angle that contradicts their point of view, have lower iq's. You can Google it if you don't believe me

>>10410865
ha tricks on you I can't even google

Honestly, though tank controls are fine they are unnecessary in a game that doesn't have fixed camera angles. Sidestepping is very much a real thing for basic locomotion unless you're a cripple on a wheelchair.

>>10410823
what if every game controlled the same from the very beginning until the end of time
how completely boring

>>10410915
He doesn't know this, but that's secretly what he wants. All controls to a homogenous scheme never to be deviated from.

>>10410823
>Most games in 2D have always had the movement relative to the camera.
Play some Asteroids, kid.

>>10410823
Do zoomers really get filtered by tank controls? they're like the easiest thing ever.

>>10410823
Because the ps1 controller didn't originally have sticks.

>>10410823
>Why the fuck were tank controls a thing?
Because the PS1 didn't have sticks

Not sure why it took so long for someone to give you this obvious correct answer

/thread

>>10410858
>>more realistic

>>10410838
yeah agreed shut up you fucking idiot retard delete your thread and shove a wad of used toilet paper up your hole

>>10411084
Moves like a robot which begs the question why there is no indie game that brings back tank controls but with an actual robot character. That would have charm out of the gate

>>10411084
skill issue

Tank control just make logical sense for 3D maneuvers. I've seen people struggle with full dual analog movement as well, since they think you flick the sticks instead of gradually tilting.

croc

>>10411084
1ccfag you're terrible at games

>Early 3D platformer designed mostly before most consoles had analog sticks has awkward ass controls
That's what happened

The tank controls definitely work the best and the game is designed around it. Not the most fun, but it works well. The analog controls on the other hand, it's like Mario if he shit his pants. Croc turns like an 18 wheeler and platforming becomes way less precise. Shame too because maybe it would have been a fun way to play if they did it right. At least it was included at all as an extra if you had the right controller

>>10410823
>Most games in 2D have always had the movement relative to the camera.
Name some that don't.

>>10411084
>misses an easy jump
>blames the game

Classic /vr/

>>10411079
Crash Bandicoot (1996) had regular controls. You’re in denial for tanks being horrendous and also for being gay

>>10410823
Lel at the Tank Controls Defence Force all over this thread
>Noooo you can't make fun of my childhood control scheme that was there because the controllers didnt have analogue sticks yet
Kek

>>10411941
I can't think of any where you play as a character (with legs) though feels like there should exist some. There's plenty of top-down vehicle games where you steer relative to the vehicle though, and not relative to the screen. Asteroids, Gravitar, Thrust, Pirates!, Star Control, Bolo, Micro Machines to name a few.

>>10410823
If you can't handle "tank controls", you can't handle games. Don't know why you don't just take up watching Netflix if having to move a character around is going to make you shriek.

>>10411102
It exists and it's called Armored Core and you faggots still cry "but the contwols are too hawd!".

>>10412178
>Lel
>Has to cope because low IQ and can't into tank controls
You have to go back

>>10412532
Thanks for proving my point
>Boohoo they are making fun of my childhood game that was my only comfort after dad went out to buy some milk one night and never came home again.
Kek

>>10412562
And again, if you're crying over tank controls you're a retard. Nobody is whining except OP. Everybody else is saying you're just too stupid, which is true.

tank controls were shit but not being able to adapt means you're an idiot

Analogue sticks and their use were not yet ubiquitous. Tank controls made a lot more sense at the time.

tank controls aren't the problem, it's that most games don't make like holding X for example make you go forward instead of Up

Can't tanks maneuver pretty well though?

I prefer tank controls

>>10412617
Yes. They can move in any direction and strafe while looking in a specific direction.

>>10412626
Huh, non. Tank controls only allow movement of forwards, backwards and rotation. You're thinking of wasd controls

>>10412617
Yeah the game controls very deliberately and well. The problem is that it takes a lot of the joy out of the experience. But you can't shit on croc for having bad controls. You might say the controls are archaic. Kinda like those ds Zelda games where you have to do everything with the stylus.

>>10412565
I never said I cried over them or are unable to handle them, just that there are better alternatives that some don't seem to grasp when its pointed out.
Its like claiming people are retarded when they prefer a mouse over a right analogue stick in fps games. Thats just retarded.

>>10412151
This

>>10412642
nta but maybe he meant since you can rotate the tank while the turret is fixed, you can then "strafe" moving left and right in relation to the turret. Not really equivalent to FPS strafing though since you first have to rotate the tank body 90 degrees.

Tank controls mimic real life, in order to go in a direction you have to turn in that direction.

>>10412642
Tanks can do a lot of things you can't.

>>10412151
Crash's gameplay works with a d-pad since you're running down a hallway. It doesn't have a full 3D world like Croc.

>>10412710
You know human beings can walk in any direction without turning around, right?
Retard.

>>10412708
But that still falls into wasd + mouse categories. In whats commonly considered "tank controls" (which doesn't include games where you control a tank, ironically), you can't aim an opposite direction you are moving, i.e. there is no separation of turret and tank body.

>>10412757
>But that still falls into wasd + mouse categories
Says fucking who? Tanks are much more versatile than "tank controls" in a videogame since they can look anywhere independently of which way they're going. By definition tank controls don't even deserve that moniker.

>>10412770
>>10412770
>By definition tank controls don't even deserve that moniker.
I agree. That still doesn't change the neoteric vernacular of tank controls through a retro videogame paradigm.

>>10412747
Yeah but why would you. It's feature bloat, how often do YOU go in a direction you're not looking in

>>10412797
Either way, calling the concept of bidirectional controls "realistic" like a tank's is not in any way correct. There are games with this kind of control scheme that also allow you to aim anywhere you want as you move. These don't fit into the FPS control method and there's no such thing as a "WASD + mouse" category.

>>10412737
Crash is 3D you fucking retard

>>10412808
>Yeah but why would you
People do it when playing most sports, when sidestepping other people on busy sidewalks, when giving way for someone else to pass them by through a doorway. Very basic police and military training also teaches you to move sideways while aiming your weapon at a target. Good luck winning a street brawl without proper footwork, Mr. "slowly rotate in place before walking forwards in a new direction".

>>10412821
Yes, my post saying it fits into wasd + mouse categories. Categories, being the main part, I wasn't trying to say that it falls into k+m controls, but that what you are describing is not the commonly accepted definition of tank controls and the ability to strafe and aim is atrributed to wasd controls, not tank controls. The etymology here is fucky, I know, but that's what it is.

>>10412747
Yeah good luck walking to the side without looking where you're going, genius. That guy is still moving forwards, he's moving in direction with his body.

>>10412837
Games like Cyber Sled existed long before this arbitrary category based on a control scheme suggested by a Quake player many years later. Retroactively labeling games like this goes both ways.

>>10412898
People can trip and bump into things they don't notice in time regardless of the direction they're going, you fucking retard.

>>10412901
Look, sister. I'm trying to explain the common idioms of the community. You can't just pretend to know understand then throw some obscure knowledge out like your an expert now. Tank controls means a thing, and butt hurtness won't change it.

>>10412912
To not understand* you're*

>>10412912
>Tank controls means a thing
Whatever idiocy you're trying to push with "wasd + mouse", means nothing. It's time to take your meds, the chronic shakes are showing in your typos.

>>10412825
He said 3D world you double retard.
Crash is extremely linear so camera position doesn't matter. Croc's camera does matter because you move around in all directions as the world is explored in all directions and is open and wide. Fuck you, you illiterate gorilla nigger.

>>10412737
How is this an argument? You can also play Mario 64 on a controller.
Croc also came out for PC which absolutely did not have an analog controller.

>>10412989
>on a controller
on a d-pad*

>>10412980
You can move in all directions in Crash too, lmao

>>10410823
Because it is a better control scheme for gamepads with a single dpad. Making a camera that follows a character in a 3D game is not too easy, let alone for devs who haven't worked with 3D before. Modern games with third-person camera like GTA and Dark Souls can afford free movement since they assume you have a second analog to adjust the camera conveniently. On a basic PS1/Saturn gamepad you'd have either rely on bumpers/triggers to unfuck the camera (that's what King's Field used I think, but that one is first-person) which is pretty inconvenient and is not always an option. Tank controls come as a simpler alternative in this situation at the cost of mobility.
In fixed camera settings, tank controls are better since you move relative to the character's directions and you don't have to adjust to camera's directions each time it changes. This is why free movement in games like DMC1 and Fatal Frame feels unresponsive when camera transitions and relies on fixes such as character movement being stuck in a single direction. Though it's more up to preference in this case I guess.

>>10412989
Crash isn't a traditional 3D platformer like Mario 64. The levels are corridors and the object placement is very grid-like. 8 directions work perfectly fine for a game like Crash.
It doesn't have moments in Mario 64 where you might need to walk across a thin board at an arbitrary angle. With a stick you just press that direction, but with a d-pad you need to do a weird tap dance or re-angle the camera. With tank controls you could angle your character and press forward.

What it comes down to is that control schemes for 3D platformers were experimental on the PS1. Some devs thought being able to angle your character in 360 degrees with only a d-pad was important so they implemented tank controls, but others did not.

>>10413117
>The levels are corridors and the object placement is very grid-like
So what? Level design has nothing to do with the directions a character in a 3D game can move. Croc also has corridor levels you pedantic retard.

>>10413270
>Level design has nothing to do with the directions a character in a 3D game can move.
It affects how devs will implement character movement, dumbass.

>>10413284
Every crash platformer plays the same including the later ones on the PS2 with wide open stages and lots of verticality like Twinsanity.
You dumb fucking catposting tranny.

>>10413291
And none of them use tank controls. What the fuck are you mad about?

>>10412980
MediEvil and Spyro work perfectly fine with the D-Pad without the tank controls, doofus

>>10412989
>PC which absolutely did not have an analog controller.
zoom zoom

>>10413448
The PC version of croc literally didn't ship with analog control support, retard. I'm talking about the game, not the platform.

>>10410823
I can't believe no-one's said this but tank controls are easier to program than camera-relative movement. Left and right always rotate the character by x degrees and up always moves the character in the direction they're facing. It makes sense that as studios were getting to grips with 3D they used a lazier control scheme.

>>10413975
I can't believe no-one's said this but camera-relative movement is easier to program than tank controls. Left and right always move the character at x angle relative to the camera and up does the same.

>>10414092
>easier to program
Camera relative movement requires more trigonometry (sin, cos, etc.). That doesn't sound easier to program.

>>10414503
>Camera relative movement requires more trigonometry
Just add the angles bro.

Why does my sister describe the swimming controls in Mario 64 as "tank controls"? She used to be a swimmer so I don't get it.

>>10414551
She's not wrong

>>10414092
>>10414503
Somehow got that the wrong way around - I meant tank controls are easier to program than camera-relative.

yo yo yo, what if there was a 2d sidescroller with tank controls?

>>10415230
Does Cybernator count? It has that real granular style of aiming with the gun

Was there any game that let you switch between tank controls and camera-relative controls at any moment with the press of a button? (eg. you would generally be using camera-relative controls but you would switch to tank controls during moments that require precision)